Miro MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates an existing image item, implying mutation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting other board elements), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key information ('Update an existing image item'), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the update operation returns (e.g., success confirmation, updated item details), potential error conditions, or how partial updates (e.g., only changing position) are handled. Given the complexity implied by multiple parameters and sibling tools, more contextual information is needed for effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 5 parameters (boardId, itemId, data, position, geometry) with their purposes. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'data' might interact with other parameters or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing image item on a Miro board'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-image-item-using-file' or 'update-item-position', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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, such as 'update-image-item-using-file' for file-based updates or 'update-item-position' for positional changes. It lacks context on prerequisites, like needing an existing image item, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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