miro_share_board

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting roles, permission requirements, or whether an invitation is sent versus immediate access). With no annotations beyond a title, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with two clear sentences plus a helpful example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and role details, with no extraneous content.

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 simplicity, the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits potential prerequisites (e.g., user must own or have share permissions on the board) and does not reference the output schema that might describe the return value. It is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema already has descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing the specific roles ('viewer, commenter, editor') and providing a voice-friendly example ('Shared board with jane@example.com as editor'), which enhances semantic understanding.

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 'Share a board with someone by email', specifying the action, resource, and method. It lists the roles (viewer, commenter, editor), distinguishing the invitation action from sibling tools like remove_board_member.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use remove_board_member, or prerequisites like board existence). The usage context is implied but not stated, leaving the agent to infer.

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