Modify an image item on a Miro board by swapping its URL, retitling it, or moving and resizing it.
Update an image item (swap URL, retitle, move/resize).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| parent_frame_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation but says nothing about permission requirements, whether omitted fields are left untouched or reset (important given all optional params default to null), or whether changes are undoable.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the resource identified immediately. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves gaps that other dimensions penalize.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should clarify partial-update semantics and the unmentioned IDs. It is far too thin for that complexity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at url, title, x/y, and width, but never mentions board_id, item_id, or parent_frame_id, and gives no semantics for the null-default optional fields (e.g. does passing null clear a 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update an image item') and enumerates the kinds of changes (swap URL, retitle, move/resize), which lets an agent tell it apart from update_shape/update_text/update_card. It does not distinguish itself from update_item_position, which also moves items, or from bulk_update_items.
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?
No statement of when to use this rather than update_item_position, bulk_update_items, or the other typed update_* siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the item must already be an image on the given board). Usage is only implied by the name and the parenthetical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.