miro_update_document

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

The idempotentHint annotation already signals safe retries. The description adds minimal context beyond stating the update action. It does not describe side effects, required permissions, or behavior for null fields. With annotations covering idempotency, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced transparency.

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 short: one sentence plus a voice-friendly phrase. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, the voice-friendly line is somewhat redundant and could be omitted without loss, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and an output schema, the description does not explain critical behavior like partial updates (only non-null fields are updated) or the effect of parent_id. The tool's complexity is higher than what the brief description conveys, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description reiterates a subset (title, url, position, width) but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate beyond what the schema provides.

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 it updates a document and lists specific fields (title, url, position, width). The verb-resource pair is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like miro_update_item or miro_update_document_from_file, though the name implies a distinct resource.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions (e.g., that other item types have dedicated update tools). This forces the agent to rely solely on naming conventions.

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