Update Form Questions

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds value by mentioning 'efficient batch operations' for multiple updates, which is not covered by annotations. This gives the agent useful performance context beyond what structured fields provide.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and key modifiers. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose and a notable behavioral aspect (batch updates). An output schema exists to detail return values, so the description omission of return info is acceptable. It lacks mention of error handling or limitations, but overall is sufficiently complete for an update 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., it mentions batch operations but the schema example illustrates that). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 clearly states the tool modifies existing questions in a Google Form, listing specific aspects like titles, descriptions, and required status. It uses a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('existing questions'), and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add_questions_to_form' which is for adding new questions.

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 for modifying existing questions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_questions_to_form' for adding questions or 'get_form' for reading. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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