gforms_forms_create

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: only title and documentTitle survive, the form starts with no description/items and default settings, and unpublished controls whether responses are accepted. That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the chaining instruction, then the flag. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers creation scope, the chaining workflow, and the unpublished flag; mentioning the returned formId partially compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gaps remain (e.g., auth or quota requirements), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents body.info and unpublished, including the unpublished response-acceptance semantics. The description's 'only title and documentTitle are honoured' mirrors the schema's own wording on body.info, adding little beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new form from a title') and immediately scopes what the created object contains. It is clearly distinguishable from gdocs_documents_create and other create-style siblings by naming the Google Forms resource.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent the follow-up path for adding questions: 'call this and then forms_batch_update with the returned formId', naming the sibling tool and the condition. It also explains the unpublished=true branch, so the agent knows when to use that flag.

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