Run a raw monday.com GraphQL document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining this is a raw GraphQL interface with no column value translation, and that mutations are possible. It does not detail error behavior or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately followed by usage boundaries. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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 raw GraphQL tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, when to use, and why to prefer other tools for item work. It does not explain return format or error handling, but GraphQL responses are self-descriptive and the open-ended nature is noted by annotations (openWorldHint=true).

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 100% (query and variables both have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameters themselves, but the context about column value translation hints at why variables may differ from other tools. No significant added value beyond the schema.

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 the tool 'Sends a GraphQL query or mutation straight to the monday.com API', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is for 'something the other tools do not cover', situating its purpose relative to the other tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use it only for something the other tools do not cover, such as boards, docs or webhooks') and when-not-to-use guidance ('prefer them for item work' because other tools handle column value translation). This is a model of usage clarity.

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