Insert a titled section break into a Google Form at a chosen position, with an optional description to organize questions into clear pages.
Add a section/page break.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Zero-based position; omit to append | |
| title | Yes | ||
| formId | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Add,' implying a mutation, but does not disclose what happens to existing items, whether the section is inserted at a position, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 concise sentence with the primary action front-loaded. While it is short and efficient, it omits important behavioral and parameter context, so it is slightly under-specified rather than fully concise.
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 four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to choose the insertion index, what the title should represent, or how sections affect form structure. The agent lacks critical context to invoke this correctly beyond basic parameter names.
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 25% since only 'index' has a description. The description does not explain 'title', 'formId', or 'description' beyond the vague implication that they relate to a section. It adds minimal semantic value and fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 a resource ('section/page break') and is distinct from sibling tools like add_text_question and add_image_item. However, the phrase 'section/page break' is slightly ambiguous about whether it adds a section, a page break, or both, which prevents a 5.
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 alternatives. There is no mention of organizing questions into sections, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.