Add a time-of-day or duration question to a Google Form, with options for required status, description, and placement position.
Add a time-of-day or duration question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Zero-based position; omit to append | |
| formId | Yes | ||
| duration | No | ||
| 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. It only states 'Add,' implying a mutation, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or behavior around the index parameter. It lacks any details beyond the basic action.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and easily understood. While it may be too brief to cover all parameters, conciseness itself is well handled.
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?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters and minimal schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the purpose of key parameters like `duration`, `required`, or `index`, nor does it explain the relationship between `time-of-day` and the boolean `duration` flag. The output schema exists, but the description still leaves too much to inference.
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% (only the index parameter has a description). The description adds minimal meaning by hinting at the 'duration' concept, which likely maps to the `duration` boolean parameter, but it does not explain formId, questionTitle, description, required, or index. This does not 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a time-of-day or duration question.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_date_question by specifying time-of-day and duration. It could be more explicit about the form context, but it is not a tautology.
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 such as add_date_question or add_text_question. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.