Update Form

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and idempotentHint=true. The description confirms the mutation (update) but adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, return values, or field-level constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details. While longer descriptions might add context, the current length is appropriate given the well-documented schema.

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 (multiple actions, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to structure input for each action. With many sibling tools and complex parameters, the description should provide more guidance to prevent misuse.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by highlighting that the action field drives which subfields are needed, but this is already implied in the schema's action enum. The brief mention is marginally helpful.

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 'Update a monday.com form' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_form' and 'get_form', though it does not explicitly name them. The hint about using the action field adds specificity.

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 advises to use the action field to specify the operation, giving a basic usage hint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., form_questions_editor for editing questions) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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