map_add

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, yet it never states that this is a mutating write, whether the change is reversible, what happens if parentId does not resolve to an existing node, or what the call returns. The only behavioral disclosure is that parentId attaches the new item to a node, which is a useful hint but far short of what an unannotated mutation tool needs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious parameter hint; nothing is redundant. The brevity borders on under-specification, but no sentence is wasted.

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 four-parameter, unannotated write tool with no output schema, the definition omits too much: no return value, no statement of what project scopes, no guidance on omitting parentId for a root node, and no failure modes. An agent could invoke it but would be guessing about the result and about edge cases.

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 only 25% (only project is documented), so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains that parentId links the item to a node and implies the kind enum's four values. It adds nothing about text or about how project interacts with node creation, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 gives a specific verb ("Record") and enumerates the resource types ("idea, decision, question or next step"), which maps directly to the kind enum, so the agent can tell this is a create-node operation. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like remember or get_map, leaving the agent to infer that this is the mind-map-specific write path.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the closest-looking alternative (remember) or of prerequisites such as an existing project. Usage is only implied by the enumerated content types, which an agent must interpret on its own.

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