set_publish_settings

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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The return value is mentioned but without details on format or potential errors. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by organized sections for arguments and returns. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose with parameter explanations, but it remains efficient overall.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) and usage guidelines. The return value is mentioned but without schema, leaving gaps in understanding the full operation context.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, providing semantics, data types, defaults, and required status (e.g., 'user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required.'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and clarifies parameter roles effectively.

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's purpose: 'Updates the publish settings of a form.' It specifies the verb ('Updates') and resource ('publish settings of a form'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'create_form' or 'get_form', which handle different aspects of form management, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing form), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_form' or 'get_form'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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