miro_upload_image

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

With no annotations beyond title, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool uploads a local file (mutation), supports specific image formats, requires file existence on filesystem, and is distinct from document/remote uploads. Lacks details on overwrite behavior or error outcomes, but sufficient for safe selection.

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 concise with clear sections (USE WHEN, PARAMETERS, NOTE, RELATED, VOICE-FRIENDLY). Each sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with main action.

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 6 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers usage context, parameter details, constraints (local file only, formats), and relationships to other tools. Very complete for an upload tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing supported extensions for file_path, clarifying title as alt text, and providing overall context for each parameter. This extra detail justifies a score above 3.

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 uploads a local image file to a Miro board, and explicitly differentiates from miro_upload_document (for documents) and miro_create_image (for remote images), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit USE WHEN phrases ('upload this image', 'add screenshot to board'), distinguishes between image vs document uploads, and mentions alternative for remote images (miro_create_image). Also includes a RELATED section.

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