Editar título/descrição do formulário

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint: the Drive documentTitle cannot be changed after creation, which is not obvious from the schema. It also clarifies that the 'title' refers to the respondent-facing header, not the file name. However, it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior, so it's not fully transparent, but it adds meaningful context beyond the structured data.

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 tightly written in two sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second adds a relevant constraint. No filler or repetition of the schema. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and earn every word.

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?

For a simple metadata update tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main functionality and a critical limitation (documentTitle immutability). It does not mention prerequisites like form existence or permissions, but given the low complexity and the schema providing required fields, it is nearly complete. A slightly higher score would require more operational detail, but this is sufficient for straightforward use.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions ('Novo título', 'Nova descrição'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'title' is distinct from the Drive file name (documentTitle), preventing a common confusion. This semantic clarification about the title parameter justifies a score above baseline.

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: to change the title and/or description of an existing form. It specifies the resource (form) and the exact fields affected, and distinguishes it from siblings like update_question or create_form by focusing on the form's top-level metadata. The parenthetical about what appears at the top for respondents removes ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implicitly clear that this is for editing title/description, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to retrieve the form first), when partial updates are allowed, or when to prefer other tools like update_question or set_publish. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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