Change item columns

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=true. The description adds context by noting that values use the same plain form as monday_create_item, and that the item name is only changed when 'name' is given. However, it does not disclose specifics about side effects, overwriting behavior, or handling of missing items, going beyond the annotation summary.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second concisely adds the format detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with 5 parameters and a nested object, the description, schema, and annotations collectively provide sufficient context for usage. The description covers the main behavior, the schema defines all parameters, and annotations indicate safety profile. The reference to monday_create_item for value format adds completeness. Minor gap: no explicit mention of behavior when item_id doesn't exist, but this is not critical.

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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that the 'values' parameter uses the same plain form as monday_create_item, which helps users understand the expected structure. It also clarifies the conditional nature of the 'name' parameter. This enriches the basic schema explanations.

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 that the tool changes the columns of a single item and optionally the item name. The verb 'changes' is specific, and the resource (item columns) is well-defined. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, and move by focusing on modification of existing item columns.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for updating an existing item, as opposed to creating or deleting. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The reference to monday_create_item for value format hints at relatedness but does not offer selection guidance.

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