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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral details: 'One conversion per node: already-converted nodes are rejected up front — resubmit without them.' This is non-obvious and not covered by annotations. It also clarifies that unlisted nodes are ignored, preventing partial conversion surprises. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches the behavioral profile.

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 dense but well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then details the role mapping, and ends with constraints and prerequisites. Each sentence adds value; there is no fluff. It is somewhat long, but given the complexity of the per-node mapping, the length is justified and front-loaded with the core concept.

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?

The description covers the input requirements, role semantics, constraints (max 200 nodes, one conversion per node), and prerequisites (Pro workspace). It does not explicitly describe the return value, but for a conversion tool, the primary need is to understand the mapping logic. Given the absence of an output schema, a brief note on the response would strengthen completeness, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds essential semantics for the 'nodes' array by explaining each role ('epic', 'existing_epic', 'card', 'label', 'skip') and the hierarchical label behavior. It also clarifies the special requirement of target_epic_id with role 'existing_epic'. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions, providing the agent with the mapping logic needed to populate parameters correctly.

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's purpose: 'Convert a mind map into backlog items with a per-node mapping.' It specifies the resource (mind map) and the action (convert), and distinguishes itself from siblings like convert_whiteboard_element by being specific to mind maps and the per-node role mapping. The explanation of roles (epic, existing_epic, card, label, skip) is concrete and 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?

The description gives explicit usage instructions: pass the ROOT element uid as id and list nodes to convert, with unlisted nodes ignored. It also states a prerequisite: 'Requires a Pro or trial workspace.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like create_card, but the context is clear that this is for bulk conversion from mind maps. The guidance is specific and actionable.

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