publish_form_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not explain the 'confirm' flag (default false, likely a dry-run gate), what 'expected_version' guards against, whether publishing is irreversible, what happens to the draft afterwards, or what auth is required.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and parameter detail an agent needs.

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 described, but for an unannotated mutation tool with 0% parameter documentation and a default-false confirm flag, the definition is too thin. It omits concurrency semantics, irreversibility, and preconditions that an agent must know before invoking it.

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% for three parameters, so the schema offers only titles like 'Confirm' and 'Expected Version' with no meaning. The description compensates only faintly: 'exact approved draft version' gestures at version pinning but never mentions draft_id, expected_version, or confirm, leaving two parameters entirely unexplained.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Create a native Google Form') and scopes it to 'the exact approved draft version', which distinguishes it from create_form_draft and preview_google_form. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the publish-vs-draft distinction is inferable from the phrasing.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as the draft needing approval before publishing or how this relates to preview_google_form. The only usage signal is the implied precondition embedded in 'approved draft version', which is thin for a mutating publish operation.

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