Add a short-answer or paragraph text question to a Google Form, specifying title, optional description, required status, and position.
Add a short-answer or paragraph question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Zero-based position; omit to append | |
| formId | Yes | ||
| required | No | ||
| paragraph | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool creates something ('Add'), without mentioning side effects, required ownership of the form, whether items can be inserted at a position, or any destructive behavior. This is a minimal mutation description with no additional behavioral context.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core purpose. It is not padded, though it could include more substantive guidance without becoming bloated.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling set including add_text_item and many add_*_question tools, this one-sentence description is insufficient. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but usage routing, parameter semantics, and behavioral details remain under-specified.
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%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. It hints that 'paragraph' distinguishes short-answer from paragraph questions, but does not clarify formId, questionTitle, required, or description. The schema's property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the low 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 specific resource ('short-answer or paragraph question'), clearly identifying this as a free-text question tool. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like add_choice_question or add_date_question by type, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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 'short-answer or paragraph' implies this tool is for open-ended text questions rather than choice, scale, date, or content-item tools. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it versus siblings like add_text_item, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.