miro_create_frame

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

Annotations are minimal (only a title), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that a frame is a visual container, but does not discuss any behavioral traits such as destructive nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior is predictable as a creation tool, but more detail would benefit the agent.

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 consists of two sentences that are concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no extraneous information.

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 that all parameters are described in the schema and there is an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and differentiation from a sibling. It could mention the visual nature more explicitly, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain defaults (e.g., width=800, height=600) or constraints.

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 frame container to group items visually', specifying the verb 'create', the resource 'frame container', and the purpose 'group items visually'. It also distinguishes from the sibling miro_create_group by noting the difference between visual and logical grouping.

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 provides guidance on when to use this tool versus miro_create_group for logical grouping without a visual border. However, it does not mention any other usage contexts, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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