miro_update_frame

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

The description discloses that the tool is a mutation (update) and notes the required constraint. Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, and the description adds context about the VOICE-FRIENDLY format. No contradictions.

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 two short sentences plus a VOICE-FRIENDLY example. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers allowed fields and a key constraint, leaving no obvious 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the constraint 'At least one field must be provided', which goes beyond the schema's required parameters and clarifies usage. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 frame's title, position, size, or color, specifying the verb 'update' and the resource 'frame'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like miro_update_sticky by being specific to frames.

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 provides a guideline that at least one optional field must be provided, which helps avoid invalid calls. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context of frames is clear enough.

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