miro_create_document

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Add' (implying creation) but omits side effects, permission requirements, success/failure responses, or limits on file size/type. The output schema exists but the description does not reference what happens on completion.

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?

Two sentences convey the purpose, a key constraint, and an alternative tool. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 the main action and a critical condition, but given the parameter count (7) and the existence of an output schema, it could mention positioning (x, y), parent frame, or result details. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, but the description adds value beyond schema: it clarifies that the URL must be publicly accessible and specifies allowed document types ('PDF, etc.'). These constraints are not present in the parameter descriptions.

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 'Add', the resource 'document', and the source 'from a URL'. It specifies document type (PDF, etc.) and the URL accessibility requirement. It distinguishes from the sibling tool miro_upload_document by indicating the alternative for local files.

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 explicitly states a key precondition (URL must be publicly accessible) and directly points to the alternative tool miro_upload_document for local file uploads. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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