Add Questions to Form

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description confirms 'adds' (write), and 'supports all question types' aligns with openWorldHint. No contradictions, but no extra behavioral details beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence covering purpose and scope with no wasted words. Parameter examples are in a separate schema but are concise and referenced in the description.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. The description explains the main task and parameter examples. However, it omits potential constraints (e.g., maximum question count, formatting limitations) and does not fully document all possible question properties despite the openWorldHint. Still, it is largely complete for a parameter-rich tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by providing concrete examples of the 'questions' parameter structure (e.g., '{"type":"TEXT_QUESTION",...}') and explains the 'SIMPLIFIED format'. It also clarifies 'form_id' source and 'user_google_email' auto-injection, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's action ('add multiple interactive questions') and resource ('to an existing Google Form'), with differentiation from sibling 'update_form_questions' via the verb 'add' and mention of 'existing'. It also lists supported question types, which clarifies scope.

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 description implies usage (adding questions to an existing form) but does not specify when to use this over alternatives like 'update_form_questions' or prerequisites (e.g., form ownership). No exclusions or context about form state are given.

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