preview_google_form

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that nothing is created or persisted, but it does not say what validation actually covers, what happens on an invalid spec, or whether failures raise errors or return a report — all material for a tool whose whole value is validation.

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 zero filler; the no-side-effect qualifier is placed where it matters. It is arguably undersized for the complexity of the input, but every word earns its place.

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 needn't be explained, but the tool's complex nested input contract and the substance of 'validate' are both unaddressed. For a validation/preview tool with a rich spec parameter, this leaves the agent guessing what is checked and what a failure looks like.

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% at the property level, and the description says nothing about the single 'spec' parameter. The nested FormSpec/SectionSpec/QuestionSpec structure (required fields, 75-section and 200-question caps, question types) is left entirely to the schema, so the description adds no semantic value for a complex, non-trivial input.

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 compound verb ('validate and preview') against a named resource ('a Google Form') and adds the crucial scope qualifier 'without creating or saving anything', which separates it from create_form_draft and publish_form_draft. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Without creating or saving anything' implies a pre-flight check to run before create/publish, which is useful implicit routing. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over create_form_draft or get_form_draft.

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