miro_copy_board

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

With no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Copy an existing Miro board', which implies a non-destructive read (the original is unchanged) and creates a new board (a write operation). However, it does not mention specific permissions required, rate limits, or what happens to the original board's content (e.g., dependencies on attached items). The description is adequate but minimally informative.

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 very short: one sentence stating the purpose and a voice-friendly example. It is front-loaded with the essential information. The voice-friendly line, while not strictly necessary, provides a concrete illustration. The brevity is effective, though the example could be considered extraneous.

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 (4 parameters, all documented in schema) and the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It provides the core functionality. However, it could mention that the copy results in a new board with a new ID, or potential side effects like duplicating content. Still, for a copy operation, it is reasonably complete.

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 for all 4 parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the name defaults to 'Copy of {original}'). Thus, the description adds no value over the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'Copy' and the resource 'existing Miro board', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like miro_create_board (which creates a new board from scratch) and miro_find_board/search_board (which locate boards without creating copies).

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 miro_create_board for a new board or miro_share_board for sharing. There are no exclusions or context about prerequisites (e.g., the user must have access to the original board). The voice-friendly line is not usage guidance.

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