postMiroNote

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Adds') and the content/position, but doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, return value, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient, so score 2.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the essential details (content and position). No wasted words, so score 5.

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?

For a simple creation tool with no output schema and full parameter coverage, the description covers the primary behavior. However, it omits return value or side effects, and with no annotations, it's slightly incomplete. Given the simplicity, it's reasonably complete but not fully, so score 4.

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?

All five parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, merely restating 'content' and 'position'. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Adds') and clearly identifies the resource ('a new sticky note') and target ('a Miro board'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listMiroBoards and getMiroBoard by clearly indicating a create operation on a note, so score 5.

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 implies usage when creating a sticky note but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor prerequisites like needing a valid boardId. It doesn't state exclusions or mention other Miro operations, so it gets a 3 for implied usage.

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