miro_create_board

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

Annotations provide no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description carries full burden. It merely states creation without behavioral details like immediate effect, permissions, limits, or response structure. The VOICE-FRIENDLY gives a sample output but no deeper traits.

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 and includes a voice-friendly example. It is efficient, though it could be more structured to mention output schema or behavior.

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 simple create tool with 3 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks mention of return values, but output schema exists separately, so not a critical gap.

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%, with each parameter already described. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Create a new Miro board' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like miro_update_board or miro_delete_board. The VOICE-FRIENDLY example adds concrete context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as miro_copy_board or miro_find_board. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use are mentioned.

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