update_mindmap_node

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

No annotations, so the description bears full disclosure. It flags the operation as experimental PATCH, states the content REPLACES the previous value, and pinpoints storage location (data.nodeView). It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or whether the board must be open, but the replacement semantics and storage field are meaningful non-obvious context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the sibling routing rule and then the storage/shape detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the alternative to avoid, the storage field, and gives a concrete HTML example. Missing only permissions/response-shape detail, which is minor here.

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 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters (including that content replaces previous). The description adds the data.nodeView storage shape and one concrete HTML example, but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (updates) and resource (existing native mind map node HTML/text content) and distinguishes itself from the sibling update_item_content by explaining that generic GET /items/{id} does not support mindmap_node. An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of update_item_content' and supplies the reason (generic item endpoint doesn't support mindmap_node). The alternative and the selecting condition are both named.

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