miro_create_card

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

Annotations are minimal (only title), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'Create' (a mutation) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The mention of card features (title, description, due dates) is basic, not behavioral.

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 concise with three sentences plus USE WHEN and VOICE-FRIENDLY examples. It is front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema (though not shown), the description is largely complete. It does not describe return values, but output schema likely covers that. It covers purpose, usage, and distinction from siblings.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that cards have title, description, and due dates. No parameter-specific extra context.

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 card on a Miro board' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool miro_create_app_card by noting the latter is for cards with custom fields and status.

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 USE WHEN examples are given ('add a card', 'create a task card', 'card with due date'). It also specifies when not to use (for custom fields/status, use miro_create_app_card).

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