miro_update_document_from_file

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

Annotations are minimal (only title). The description adds useful behavioral context: file must exist locally, supported formats, max 6 MB, and that the item must already be a document. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive or reversible.

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?

Well-structured with sections (USE WHEN, PARAMETERS, NOTE, RELATED, VOICE-FRIENDLY). Front-loaded with purpose, no irrelevant sentences.

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 has 7 parameters (3 required) and an output schema exists, the description covers purpose, parameter constraints, usage context, and related tools thoroughly. No gaps.

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%, but the description adds value by specifying supported file formats and max size for file_path, and clarifying that item_id refers to an existing document item. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 replaces the file on an existing document item with a new local file. It distinguishes from siblings (miro_update_document for metadata only, miro_upload_document for creating new).

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?

Includes explicit 'USE WHEN' examples (replace this document, update the PDF, swap the file) and explicitly contrasts with alternative tools for different use cases (metadata updates, creation).

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