Add a rating question to a Google Form using star, heart, or thumb icons, with a scale from 3 to 10 and optional required setting.
Add a star, heart, or thumb rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Zero-based position; omit to append | |
| formId | Yes | ||
| iconType | Yes | ||
| required | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| questionTitle | Yes | ||
| ratingScaleLevel | 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, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Add', implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, constraints, or behavior. It doesn't mention the rating scale range, icon types, or that it appends to the form. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's effect.
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 short sentence, which is concise, but it's too under-specified to be useful. It lacks structure like usage context or parameter hints, and the brevity sacrifices informational value.
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 has 7 parameters with low schema coverage and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain the required parameters, how to specify the question, or what the response looks like. An agent would have to infer too much from the schema alone.
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%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The description text does not explain any parameters or compensate for schema gaps. For example, it doesn't mention that ratingScaleLevel must be between 3 and 10 or that iconType has specific values.
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 specific action ('Add') and resource ('star, heart, or thumb rating'), which distinguishes it from siblings like text or choice questions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's a question added to a form, and the context of the form is implied by the tool name rather than stated. Still, the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from other add_* tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_scale_question or add_choice_question. The description doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent gets no routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.