postMiroNote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating nature ('Adds') but does not mention permissions, error handling, response shape, or side effects (e.g., what happens if the board is invalid). This is a significant gap 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the verb, object, and key context with no unnecessary words.

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 tool has 5 parameters with full schema documentation and no output schema. The description clarifies the core action but omits details about return values, error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., valid boardId), making it minimally complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description's mentions of 'content' and 'position' are a summary rather than adding new semantics. The schema already documents defaults and constraints, so the description adds marginal value.

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's action with a specific verb ('Adds'), resource ('sticky note'), and target ('Miro board'), and includes position context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are for other platforms.

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 a sticky note needs to be added to a Miro board, but it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance or exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools for similar actions.

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