Update form info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict these. It adds valuable behavioral context: automatic updateMask computation, the requirement of at least one field, and the return value with new revisionId.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the primary action, then explain constraints and return value. Every sentence carries essential information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, update semantics, parameter constraints, and the return value (batchUpdate replies with revisionId). Given the tool's simple four-parameter surface and absence of an output schema, this is fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining partial update semantics ('Only the provided fields are touched') and clarifying that at least one field is required, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Changes' and names the exact resources: form title, description, and document title. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_form_settings, which would update other form settings.

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 implies usage for updating informational form fields and the partial-update behavior provides context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like update_form_settings for non-informational settings.

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