monday-add-doc-block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It mentions adding a block but omits behavioral traits like error handling or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 ('Add a block to a document') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effects), usage guidelines, and details on return values or errors. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a write operation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (doc_id, block_type, content, after_block_id) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints for block_type values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('block to a document'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'monday-create-doc' (creates documents) and 'monday-get-doc-content' (reads content), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what kind of document (Monday.com document).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing document), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'monday-create-doc' (for creating documents) or 'monday-update-item' (for other modifications). Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, lacking explicit context.

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