run_query

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

With no annotations present, the description... ...does not disclose mutation effects, whether operations can be destructive, rate limits, error behavior, or return1 result shape. Merely saying it 'requires a monday.com API key' is useful but insufficient for a tool that can execute arbitrary mutations.

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 only two isolated sentences with no fluff. The main operation is front-loaded ('Executes a GraphQL query or mutation…') and the auth requirement is stated clearly and separately. Every sentence carries meaningful information.

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 thin GraphQL executor, the description is minimally viable: it states the action, the target API, and the result. However, without annotations, an output schema, or any notes on mutation behavior, /error handling, or relationship to sibling tools, an agent is left with gaps before invoking it safely.

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%, so each parameter (query, api_key, variables) already has a semantic description. The tool description adds almost no new parameter detail beyond saying an API key is required. This falls directly on the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Executes') with a named resource ('monday.com API') and clearly indicates it handles GraphQL queries and mutations and returns a result. It is distinguishable from siblings like validate_query and get_schema, though it does not explicitly name them or explain the distinction.

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 says when the tool will run (a GraphQL query/mutation), but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, such as validate_query for validation get_schema for introspection, or explain_error for debugging errors. It also doesn't state conditions, prerequisites beyond an API key, or exclusions.

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