create_form

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

The description discloses the return behavior (confirmation message with form ID and edit URL) and includes an Args section with types and required markers. However, it does not mention potential side effects beyond creation, required authentication/permissions, or error conditions. The reference to a 'provided form message' is unexplained, which is a significant transparency gap, especially with no annotations to cover the burden.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise and front-loaded. The opening sentence is somewhat awkward due to the 'provided form message' phrase, but overall it earns its place without 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?

The description is incomplete for a create operation. It fails to explain what a 'form message' is, which appears to be a prerequisite for invoking the tool correctly. While the return value is stated, there is no mention of required permissions, the environment (Google Workspace), or any post-creation implications. This ambiguity significantly reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose: user_google_email, title, description, and document_title. It also flags required parameters. However, it does not clarify the relationship between the 'title given in the provided form message' and the 'title' parameter, leaving a semantic gap.

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 creates a new form, establishing a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_form or set_publish_settings. However, the phrase 'using the title given in the provided form message in the request' introduces ambiguity about whether the title comes from a message or the 'title' parameter, slightly clouding the purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_form or other creation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or intended scenarios. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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