Raw Google Forms API call

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk of arbitrary calls is flagged. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the Bearer token is added automatically, the method defaults to GET, and the path may include a query string. It does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides illustrative examples. It is slightly verbose with multiple examples in one sentence, but each sentence earns its place by clarifying important usage nuances (query strings, automatic auth, method default). It strikes a reasonable balance between completeness and conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's open-ended and destructive nature, the description covers the essential invocation details: path format, method, body, query strings, and auth. There is no output schema, but for a raw API pass-through, the response format is inherently endpoint-dependent. The description could mention error handling or raw JSON response, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly in most cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds practical meaning beyond field names: it gives a concrete path example with batchUpdate, shows how to format the body as {'requests':[...]}, and notes that the path can carry a query string. This enhances the schema's minimal descriptions, though much of the information is also already present in the schema's own examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly identifies the tool as an 'escape hatch' for any Google Forms API v1 path, with a specific verb ('call') and resource ('any Google Forms API v1 path'). It distinguishes itself from typed siblings by stating it covers requests 'the typed tools don't cover', making its unique role clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states when to use this tool: 'for requests the typed tools don't cover'. It provides concrete examples of such cases (batchUpdate, writeControl, etc.). It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or say 'don't use if a typed tool exists', but the 'typed tools don't cover' phrasing strongly implies that exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.