miro_update_tag

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, consistent with the update operation. The description adds the constraint that at least one of title or color must be provided, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions or missing behavioral details for the simple operation.

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 sentences plus a voice-friendly example. Every sentence adds value: purpose, constraint, and an example for voice interfaces. No filler or repetition.

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's simplicity (4 params, 2 required, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, constraint, and provides an example. Siblings are differentiated by object type.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds the cross-parameter constraint that at least one of title or color must be provided, which is not obvious from the schema alone. This adds meaningful guidance.

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 explicitly states it updates a tag's title or color, which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like miro_list_tags (listing) and other update tools (different object types).

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 usage constraint ('At least one must be provided') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names provide implicit differentiation, but no when-not-to-use or explicit comparisons.

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