create_form_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful traits — the draft is persistent and versioned, and no Google Form is created — which implies a safe, reversible, local-only operation. However, it omits auth requirements, whether each call creates a new version or overwrites, and any limits on draft count.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the differentiating clause is placed immediately after the core action. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema documents the spec shape. Still, with no annotations the description should say more about versioning semantics and side effects — key facts for a tool whose siblings include patch, undo, and publish.

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?

There is one required parameter (spec) with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains that it is a complete form definition. The schema's internal $defs are self-describing (field descriptions, enums, bounds), which does much of the work, but the prose adds nothing about the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (save) and a specific resource (persistent, versioned form draft), and the clause 'without creating a Google Form' implicitly separates it from publish_form_draft and update_existing_google_form. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'without creating a Google Form' hints at the use case (drafting before publishing), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to publish_form_draft, patch_form_draft, or undo_draft_change as alternatives. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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