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

Annotations already signal this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: uploaded bytes are validated before the import becomes a usable capture. It does not disclose failure behavior or what happens if validation fails, but it provides more context than the annotations alone.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler or repetition. The core action is front-loaded, and the validation step is presented as a meaningful second sentence.

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?

The description covers the main flow and outcome, and the schema fully documents parameters, but it omits response semantics and failure behavior for validation. For a non-idempotent state-changing tool without an output schema, this is a minimal but slightly incomplete definition.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and constraints at 100% coverage. The description adds general workflow context but no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 identifies a specific verb ('complete') and resource ('Miro artifact import'), and adds process context about uploading to a signed URL and becoming a usable Clarity capture. It is distinguishable from sibling upload-completion tools by 'artifact import,' though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 clearly states the temporal context: call this tool after uploading to the signed URL. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sequencing is explicit enough for an agent to understand when in the workflow this belongs.

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