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 'Update an existing shape item,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions (e.g., edit access to the board), whether updates are partial or overwrite all fields, error handling (e.g., if the item doesn't exist), or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for a basic description.

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 (a mutation with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated (e.g., shape type, content, style), how partial updates work, or what the response includes (e.g., success confirmation or updated item data). For a mutation tool without structured support, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of valid shape types (e.g., 'rectangle') or style values. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing shape item on a Miro board'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-shape-item' vs 'update-item-position' or 'update-group', which also modify board items, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 shape item), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new shapes), or compare to siblings like 'update-item-position' (which might handle only position updates) or 'create-shape-item' (for new shapes). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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