set_publish_settings

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutation behavior indirectly through the dry_run parameter ('preview the update without mutating'), but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if settings are already set. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 structurally clear with a brief intro sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters and a return type. It is concise without unnecessary words, though the info could be more front-loaded to quickly convey the tool's primary function.

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 (5 parameters, mutation, output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete. It covers main parameters and return value, but lacks information on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., form existence, permissions), and the exact effect of each boolean parameter on the form's visibility.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter's purpose: user_google_email and form_id as identifiers, publish_as_template and require_authentication as boolean settings, and dry_run for preview. It also implies default values (dry_run defaults to true per schema) and describes behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Updates the publish settings of a form') and identifies the resource (a form). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'update_drive_file' or 'update_google_doc' by specifying the particular kind of update (publish 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. For a tool that modifies a form's publish settings, this lack of context could lead to misuse.

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