Create form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') without revealing side effects, authentication requirements, whether an account parameter is mandatory, what happens on success or failure, or whether the created form is immediately usable. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it is somewhat under-specified for a tool with a second optional parameter, and the balance between conciseness and completeness could be improved. Still, it earns a high score for being appropriately sized and non-redundant.

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 that this is a creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify at least the return value (e.g., the created form ID) and the role of the optional 'account' parameter. It does neither. An agent would be left unsure how to use the result in subsequent calls (e.g., google_forms_add_question). The description is not complete enough for reliable tool invocation without additional inference.

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%: both 'title' and 'account' have clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds only 'with a title,' which reiterates the schema. It does not provide additional meaning about the 'account' parameter (e.g., default behavior, relationship to the 'account' concept). Since the schema already documents parameters adequately, a 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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new Google Form') with a required parameter (title). It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like google_forms_get or google_forms_responses by focusing on the creation action. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with other create tools in the suite, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in higher-scoring examples.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an account), scenarios where this tool is preferred over other form-related tools, or any conditions under which it should not be used. The agent must infer usage context entirely 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.