update_miro_sync_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses serialized writes (concurrency safety), file name, and mode behaviors. However, it does not detail permission requirements, error states, or side effects of write operations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose, then concurrency note, then mode-specific guidance. No redundant or extra information; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers key aspects: file target, two modes, concurrency, and safe usage. It references sibling tool. Lacks error handling or validation details, but overall complete for a write tool of this complexity.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description compensates well by explaining entries purpose, mode options with usage guidance (merge by board_id + tracker_key), and board_id_for_replace context. It adds meaning beyond schema names but could elaborate on each property's constraints.

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 updates sync-map.json with new or changed Tracker↔Miro pairs, distinguishing between two modes (upsert and replace_all) and referencing the sibling tool get_miro_sync_map for reading, which sets it apart.

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 explicitly explains when to use each mode: upsert for adding one pair at a time, replace_all for full mapping list, advises reading first with get_miro_sync_map for safety, and highlights serialized writes to prevent corruption.

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