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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the precise set of structural conditions that constitute 'mind-map-ready', which is the behavioral core an agent needs. It does not state whether it only reports problems or also repairs them (cf. flowzap_fix), leaving a small gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the enumerated checks and the pre-requisite ordering. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter, read-only validator this covers what is checked and when to call it. With no output schema present, the description could have said what a failure looks like (boolean, error list, per-rule messages), which is the one remaining thing an agent might want to know.

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?

Only one parameter, with 100% schema description coverage ('FlowZap Code to validate for mind map readiness'). The description repeats the same notion without adding format, size, or syntax details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (validate) and a scoped resource (FlowZap Code for Mind Map diagrams), then enumerates the concrete rules checked: no diamonds, no taskboxes, at least one circle for the root, at least one rectangle for branches. The 'specifically for Mind Map diagrams' scoping distinguishes it from the general flowzap_validate sibling.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use this before flowzap_mindmap_approve and flowzap_mindmap_create_playground', naming the two downstream siblings by exact name. It stops short of an explicit exclusion telling the agent to use flowzap_validate for non-mind-map diagrams, so selection versus the general validator is only implied by the scoping phrase.

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