Add a radio or checkbox grid question to a Google Form by defining rows, columns, and response type.
Add a radio or checkbox grid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | Yes | ||
| index | No | Zero-based position; omit to append | |
| title | Yes | ||
| formId | Yes | ||
| columns | Yes | ||
| gridType | No | RADIO | |
| required | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| shuffleRows | 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add', with no mention of append-versus-insert semantics, the default RADIO gridType, required/shuffle behavior, or any side effects. The schema's index description hints at insertion behavior, but the description itself does not surface it.
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 text is short, fluff-free, and front-loaded with the core action, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters. The brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined conciseness.
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 no annotations, very low schema coverage, and nine parameters, a one-clause description is far from complete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks essential guidance about parameter semantics, defaults, and placement behavior needed to call the tool correctly.
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 schema description coverage at only 11%, the description needed to compensate, but it names no parameters except implicitly echoing the gridType enum via 'radio or checkbox'. Rows, columns, formId, title, index, required, and shuffleRows remain unexplained by the description.
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 states a clear action ('Add') and resource ('grid') and names the two supported variants ('radio or checkbox'). It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling question-adders by the grid resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with tools like add_choice_question or add_multiple_choice_question.
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 about when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use this for multi-row/multi-column grids rather than single choice questions', leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.