Insert explanatory text into a Google Form at a specified index or appended, offering context and guidance without adding a question.
Add non-question explanatory text.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Add non-question explanatory text', which implies a mutation but doesn't disclose what resource is modified (the form), whether the form must exist, or any side effects. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 with no filler and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than valuable conciseness. Still, for what it does say, it is well-structured.
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 4 parameters, including an insertion index, and it performs a mutation. The description doesn't explain that it adds an item to a form, the meaning of the index parameter, or what happens to existing items. Although an output schema exists, the description leaves critical context missing for correct invocation.
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?
Only 1 of 4 parameters (index) has a description in the schema, giving 25% coverage. The tool description doesn't mention formId, title, description, or index at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't.
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 identifies the resource as 'non-question explanatory text', which clearly differentiates it from sibling add_text_question and other add_* tools. An agent can determine its purpose immediately without reading the schema.
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 phrase 'non-question' implies this is for explanatory text rather than questions, providing some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.