miro_update_card

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent. The description does not add behavioral details beyond listing updatable fields; it lacks information about error states, partial updates, or authorization requirements.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. The voice-friendly example is an extra but not essential. Some restructuring could improve clarity, but overall it's efficient.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain partial update semantics (e.g., omitting a field leaves it unchanged), prerequisites, or the effect of null values. The output schema exists, but the description lacks operational context.

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%, and the description lists some parameters (title, description, due_date, position) but omits x, y, width, parent_id. The voice-friendly example adds limited value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers details.

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 tool updates a card and lists updatable fields (title, description, due_date, position). It is specific to cards, distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like miro_update_item, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like miro_update_item or miro_update_sticky. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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