Add a multiple-choice question to a Google Form by specifying title and options; optionally mark as required, add a description, or set its position.
Compatibility alias for a radio-button question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Zero-based position; omit to append | |
| formId | Yes | ||
| options | Yes | ||
| required | No | ||
| description | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not mention that this is a mutating operation, how options are handled, where the question is inserted, or any side effects.
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 but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It provides no useful structure or operational detail, so its brevity is a liability, not a strength.
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?
Despite an output schema being present, the description is grossly incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and many closely related siblings. It omits the core action, the form context, parameter roles, and the distinction from add_choice_question.
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 17%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not mention formId, questionTitle, options, index, required, or description at all. Agents are left to infer meaning from parameter names alone.
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 is a noun fragment, not a statement of what the tool does. 'Compatibility alias for a radio-button question' restates the tool's name in different words and never says it adds a question to a form, leaving the action implicit. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like add_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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_choice_question, add_scale_question, or other question adders. 'Compatibility alias' hints at a legacy or compatibility purpose but never states a condition or preference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.