Add form question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'Add a question,' without disclosing that the question is appended to an existing form, whether multiple_choice requires options, how required/defaults are handled, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency 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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and subject without any redundant words. It is an ideal model of conciseness.

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?

Although the parameter schema is rich, there are no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not mention return values, prerequisites (like needing an existing form), or behavioral details. For a tool with 7 parameters and mutation semantics, this is incomplete.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('question'), and further specifies 'text or multiple-choice' and 'to a form.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_forms_create (form creation) and google_forms_get/responses (read operations).

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 adding a question to an existing form, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like google_forms_create, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is clear enough for a basic action but lacks explicit when-to-use/not-to-use guidance.

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