Form Questions Editor

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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true) by stating create/update/delete actions. However, it adds no additional context about side effects, required permissions, reversal possibilities, or data integrity concerns (e.g., preserving option values for existing submissions). The schema’s options field does provide some guidance, but the description itself is minimal.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool’s purpose. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy, earning a high score for conciseness. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without losing brevity.

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?

Given the tool’s complexity (nested objects, many parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It lacks details about return values, how to properly update options (though the schema mentions calling get_form first), or error handling. The description alone does not sufficiently inform an agent about the full behavior and requirements.

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 high (75%), and the schema already contains detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., action enum, question object fields). The description's brief summary does not add meaningful insight beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 performs create, update, or delete operations on questions within a monday.com form. It uses specific verbs and a distinct resource ('question in a monday.com form') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_form or update_form, which handle the form itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_form (for reading questions) or update_form (for form-level changes). It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the action parameter.

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