Add form question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action ('Add') and does not describe side effects, whether the operation modifies the form in place, permission requirements, response behavior, or how the tool handles the interplay between type and options. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is straightforward and front-loaded, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent. It omits behavioral context (e.g., that multiple_choice likely requires options, that required/description are optional modifiers, and what the response/return value is), leaving meaningful gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'text or multiple-choice' loosely mirrors the type enum, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents. The parameters' semantics are otherwise handled entirely by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('a text or multiple-choice question to a form'), and names the two supported question types. This inherently sets it apart from sibling form tools like google_forms_create, google_forms_get, and google_forms_responses, which clearly perform different actions.

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 its use case (adding a question to an existing form) but never states when to use it versus alternatives, nor mentions prerequisites such as requiring an existing formId. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and schema.

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