Add a YouTube video to a Google Form at a specified position, optionally with title, caption, description, alignment, and width.
Add a YouTube video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Zero-based position; omit to append | |
| title | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| formId | Yes | ||
| caption | No | ||
| alignment | No | CENTER | |
| youtubeUri | 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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a create/mutation operation, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, is idempotent, or what happens to existing items. The behavioral profile is almost entirely absent.
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, so it is structurally concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified to the point of being nearly tautological with the tool name, providing almost no actionable detail beyond the name itself. It is not bloated, but it also does not earn its place with useful information.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and only 13% schema description coverage, this description is substantially incomplete. It does not mention the required formId parameter, the placement semantics of index, or how the video item fits into the form structure. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves critical invocation details 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 13%, and the description adds essentially no parameter semantics. It does not clarify the format of youtubeUri, the meaning of formId, or how index, title, caption, width, and alignment interact. The phrase 'YouTube video' adds little beyond what the parameter name youtubeUri already conveys.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a YouTube video.' This distinguishes it from siblings like add_text_item and add_image_item by specifying the content type. It does not explicitly mention that the video is an item within a form, but the tool name and sibling context make that connection reasonable.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to add_text_item, add_image_item, or move_item. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and the 'YouTube video' phrase. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.