Miro MCP

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. It states the tool updates a group but doesn't describe what 'update' entails beyond 'with new items'—missing details like whether this overwrites existing items, requires specific permissions, affects other board elements, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Update a specific group on a Miro board') and adds necessary detail ('with new items'). There's no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., update mechanics, permissions), output expectations, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 (boardId, groupId, data with items). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'new items', which aligns with the 'items' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('update') and target ('a specific group on a Miro board'), specifying what gets updated ('with new items'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create-group' and 'delete-group' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update-app-card-item' or 'update-board' beyond the group focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing group), exclusions (e.g., not for creating groups), or comparisons to siblings like 'update-item-position' or 'ungroup-items'. The context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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