Edit mind map nodes

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing partial-update semantics ("only the fields you pass change"), the persistence model (saved at once as a new revision of the board), live propagation to open browsers, and user recoverability via Ctrl+Z. It also states the return shape ("Returns how many nodes changed"), which is valuable given there is no output schema. The revision-per-call note is a minor tension with idempotentHint but not a contradiction of the tool's resulting state.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the editable field list, then behavior, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries information (what changes, when it saves, what it returns, what to use instead) with no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return value, the mutation semantics, persistence and visibility behavior, and the escape hatch to sibling tools. For a two-parameter tool with fully documented nested fields, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the per-field semantics are already documented in the schema (icon, node, text, color, checked, collapsed). The description adds one genuinely non-obvious rule the schema omits: fields not passed are left unchanged, which matters for a multi-node update array.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Change existing mind map nodes") and enumerates exactly which attributes are editable: text, branch color, icon, folded state, checkbox. It also names the adjacent operations it is not (add_nodes, move_node, delete_nodes), so an agent can separate it from siblings 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 routes the three nearest alternatives: add_nodes for creation, move_node for repositioning, delete_nodes for removal, which covers the realistic confusion set. It also states the batching rule ("Several nodes in one call") and the per-field conditional semantics, giving the agent a clear sense of when this tool is the right pick.

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