monday_duplicate_board

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details, omitting side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is synchronous. The agent cannot anticipate the tool's impact.

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 includes irrelevant routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) that may not aid tool selection. The first sentence is minimal, and every word does not earn its place relative to agent needs.

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 potentially complex operation (board duplication) and no annotations or output schema details in the description, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain inputs, outputs, or behavior, leaving the agent unable to use it 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 no meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to clarify what keys the JSON should contain.

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 it is a 'duplicate_board' operation but never explains what duplication entails (e.g., copies a Monday.com board). It relies solely on the tool name, which is vague, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like monday_archive_board or monday_create_board.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where duplication is appropriate.

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