Add an image to a Google Form from a public URL, setting alt text, alignment, width, and position. Enrich forms with visuals directly from a link.
Add an image from a public URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Zero-based position; omit to append | |
| title | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| formId | Yes | ||
| altText | Yes | ||
| alignment | No | CENTER | |
| sourceUri | Yes | ||
| description | No |
| 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 are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a mutation ('Add') but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or behavior around the index/position. The only additional behavioral detail is that the image must come from a public URL, which 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word serves the purpose of stating the action. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a simple add operation.
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 tool has 8 parameters, 3 of them required, and is a mutation operation, yet the description gives no context about how the item is added, what the index means, or what happens to existing items. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and contextual information.
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 13% (only 'index' has a description), so the description must compensate for the other seven parameters. It provides limited context for sourceUri as a public URL, but does not explain formId, altText, alignment, width, title, or description. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'image', with the source 'public URL' clearly stated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_text_item and add_video_item by specifying the media type. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.
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 such as add_video_item or add_text_item. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'image'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.