Expands a map/concept Markdown file into a directory with a same-ID index.md, so it can hold child satellite pages without breaking existing links.
Turns .md into a directory / whose index.md keeps the same ID, so the concept can hold satellites /; links keep working. id needs exactly two segments (map/concept). No inverse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| reason | No | Why (commit trailer) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does surface the key trait that the operation is one-way ('No inverse'), which is exactly the irreversibility fact an agent needs. It also notes links keep working. It says nothing about permissions, whether a commit is produced (the 'reason' param hints at git), or failure modes.
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?
Three tight clauses with no filler; the transformation and its constraint are front-loaded. Slightly telegraphic phrasing costs a point but nothing 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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone for a filesystem-restructuring mutation. It covers the transformation and irreversibility, but omits error behavior for malformed ids, git/side-effect implications, and any post-condition beyond 'links keep working'.
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 coverage is 50%: 'reason' is documented in the schema as a commit trailer, while 'id' has no schema description. The description compensates partially by defining id's required shape ('exactly two segments, map/concept') and its role in the file-to-directory mapping, which is meaningful added meaning.
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?
States a concrete verb and transformation: '<id>.md' becomes a directory '<id>/' with an index.md, so satellites can hang off it. The 'No inverse' note disambiguates it from reversible siblings like concept_move. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, but the resource and effect are 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?
Gives one precondition ('id needs exactly two segments (map/concept)') that constrains when it can be used, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over concept_new, concept_move, or concept_write, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.