miro_update_board

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

Annotations indicate idempotency, and the description adds the 'at least one field' requirement. However, it does not discuss error cases, authentication needs, or side effects beyond the basic update. The information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, delivered in two sentences and an example. Every element serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool (three params, one required) and the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects. It might lack details on error handling, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward update operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by stating the 'at least one field' constraint and providing a concrete example, enhancing usability beyond the schema.

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 'Update a Miro board's name or description', specifying the action, resource, and fields involved. Among siblings like miro_update_card or miro_update_frame, this one uniquely targets the board itself, providing clear differentiation.

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 includes the important constraint 'At least one field must be provided' and gives a voice-friendly example. Although it does not explicitly list when to use this tool versus others, the sibling tools cover different entity types, making usage context clear.

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