miro_attach_tag

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals prerequisites (tag must exist), supported item types (sticky_note, card), and a voice-friendly output example. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences for core purpose, then structured USE WHEN, FAILS WHEN, and VOICE-FRIENDLY sections. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 description covers prerequisites, failure cases, and usage examples. With an output schema present, return values are handled separately. All necessary context for a simple attachment tool is provided.

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, but the description adds context: tag_id must exist on the board, and item_id must be a sticky_note or card (schema restricts to sticky note, description adds card). This adds value beyond the schema.

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 attaches an existing tag to a sticky note or card, specifying verb, resource, and target. It distinguishes from siblings like miro_create_tag and miro_detach_tag.

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?

Explicit usage examples and failure conditions are provided. It explains when it fails (tag doesn't exist, wrong item type) and implies using miro_create_tag first. Could be slightly more explicit about alternatives like miro_detach_tag for removal, but overall clear.

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