monday_change_column_value

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states routing information (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive or benign.

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 very short, but conciseness without substance is not helpful. The first sentence names the tool, the second provides routing info which may be superfluous. Every sentence is simple, but the lack of detail makes it less effective.

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 the tool has a single parameter with no schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description should explain what the tool does, its return value, and potential constraints. It fails to provide this context, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide details on expected keys or structure, but it does not.

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 names the operation 'change_column_value' and identifies it as a Monday connector operation, providing a verb and resource. However, it lacks details on what context (e.g., which item or board) and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'monday_update_item' or 'monday_create_item'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.