validate_query

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates the validation-only nature and the optional online schema validation, but it does not disclose what the tool returns on success or failure, whether it ever executes the query, or what side effects the optional API key usage has.

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 focused sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with the key operational caveat about the optional API key, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the caller should expect in return-whether it emits a boolean, a report, error details, or a complexity estimate. Given the tool's purpose is validation, the agent is left unsure how to interpret the result, which is a meaningful gap in context.

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 coverage is already 100%, so both parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds slightly by clarifying that syntax and complexity checks work without the API key and that the key is only needed for live schema validation, but this mostly restates what the schema already says.

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 a specific verb and resource: validates a monday.com GraphQL query. It also enumerates the concrete validation activities (syntax, complexity, common pitfalls) and distinguishes itself from execution tools like run_query by focusing on validation rather than running the query.

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 clear context for what the tool does and notes that a live schema check requires an API key. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as run_query or explain_error, nor does it name any alternative for actually executing a validated query.

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