Reorder items in a Google Form by moving one from its current position to a new zero-based index.
Move an item between zero-based positions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formId | Yes | ||
| toIndex | Yes | ||
| fromIndex | 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that positions are zero-based, but does not state that this mutates the form, whether the operation is reversible, what validation applies, or what permissions are required.
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 filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it concise and easy to parse quickly.
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?
Despite an output schema being present, the description still fails to cover essential context: it does not explain which form owns the item, what item types are valid, or whether movement has any permanent side effects. For a mutation-like operation with three required parameters and zero annotation support, the description is too minimal to be fully actionable.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only adds meaning to fromIndex and toIndex via 'zero-based positions', while formId is left entirely unexplained and no distinction between source and destination index is made.
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 verb ('Move'), a resource ('item'), and a key detail (zero-based positions), so the tool's core function is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like delete_item or add_text_item, but the move action is distinct enough to be identifiable.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_item or reordering via other means. It also does not mention any prerequisites or conditions under which moving an item is appropriate, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.