Update form info

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

Annotations already indicate mutating behavior (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important behavioral details: it only touches provided fields (partial update), requires at least one field, and returns batchUpdate replies with new revisionId. It also notes the limitation that the document title cannot be changed, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any potential side effects or error conditions beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise, with three sentences that are all informative. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then explains the partial-update behavior, and finally notes the Drive rename limitation. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, decent annotations, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, usage, and important behavioral nuances (partial updates, rename limitation, return value). It lacks an explicit mention of error handling or prerequisites (e.g., if the form must exist), but overall it is complete enough for the intended use. Slight deduction for not mentioning what happens if neither title nor description is provided, though the description implies it's required.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by explaining that only provided fields are touched and that at least one field is required (though the schema implies this via required form_id, it doesn't explicitly say at least one of title/description). It also clarifies the form_id from the URL. This is a typical baseline of 3 when schema covers the semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Changes the form's title and/or description.' It specifies the resource (form) and the scoped fields (title/description), and distinguishes it from siblings like update_form_settings by focusing on title/description rather than settings. The mention of the Drive rename limitation further clarifies what the tool does not do.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when updating title or description. It also explains when not to use it for renaming the Drive file, suggesting an alternative (Drive API) but not a sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_form_settings or add_question, though the specified fields make it fairly clear.

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