Add a date or date-time question to a Google Form using the form ID and question title, with options for time, year, description, required, and position.
Add a date or date-time question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Zero-based position; omit to append | |
| formId | Yes | ||
| required | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| includeTime | No | ||
| includeYear | No | ||
| questionTitle | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation ('Add') without mentioning side effects, permissions, ordering behavior, or what happens to the existing form. For a tool with seven parameters, this is minimal.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and artifact, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness comes at the cost of completeness, which is captured in other dimensions.
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 seven parameters, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description omits call-level guidance such as which boolean toggles produce date-only versus date-time questions and how this differs from add_time_question. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the overall context is still 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 only 14%, with only index receiving a real description, yet the tool description does not explain includeTime, includeYear, required, or description. The phrase 'date or date-time' hints at includeTime but does not map the parameters to behavior.
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 names a specific action ('Add') and a specific artifact ('a date or date-time question'), so an agent can distinguish it from add_text_question and add_choice_question. It does not restate the tool name and is unambiguous about what kind of question it creates.
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 sentence tells when to prefer this tool over add_time_question or the other question-adding siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The intended usage context is only implied by the tool name and the brief description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.