updateMondayItem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the update requires column_values in a specific format and implies partial updates by saying 'updated field(s)'. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens to unspecified columns. It adds some useful context beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds value—the second clarifies the critical column_values format. No fluff.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core usage and the format for column_values. It lacks details like return values or error behavior, but it's adequately complete for an agent to invoke the tool.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with examples, so the description adds little. It reiterates that column_values is required and should use the specified format, but this is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: updating an existing item in a Monday board. The verb 'Updates' and object 'existing item' distinguish it from createMondayItem and createMondayUpdate.

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 phrase 'existing item' implies the user must have an item_id, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like createMondayItem, nor does it provide exclusions. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to identify the appropriate use case.

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