Preview or apply signed targeted updates to an existing Google Form, such as editing questions, options, sections, titles, and descriptions.
Preview or apply a signed targeted update plan to an existing Google Form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| form_id | Yes | ||
| operations | No | ||
| plan_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It omits that the operation set includes destructive actions (delete_question, remove_option), that confirm/plan_token gate whether changes actually apply, and any auth or side-effect details. For a mutating tool with no annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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. It is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than tight communication.
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?
The schema is complex (10 discriminated operation variants, nested QuestionSpec) and no annotations exist, yet the description covers none of the preview/apply mechanics, destructive operations, or parameter roles. An output schema exists, so return values are not owed, but the operational model still is.
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% and the description explains none of the four parameters. The words 'signed' and 'plan' vaguely gesture at plan_token, but confirm, operations, and form_id are never addressed, leaving the most consequential controls (confirm, plan_token) undocumented.
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 (update) and resource (existing Google Form), and the 'preview or apply' phrasing hints at a two-phase workflow. However, 'signed targeted update plan' is left undefined, so an agent can't tell precisely what a plan is or how this differs from patch_form_draft without opening the schema.
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 on when to use this tool versus patch_form_draft, preview_google_form, or undo_draft_change. The 'preview or apply' wording implies a two-step flow but never states which parameter selects each mode, so the agent must infer it from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.