mind_map_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the confirmation requirement ('Requires confirm=True after user approval'), which adds some behavioral context, but it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies existing data), rate limits, or output format. For a tool that likely creates persistent content, this is insufficient disclosure.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured Args section. It's relatively concise with no wasted sentences, though the Args formatting could be more integrated into the flow. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly polished.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, 4 parameters, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output, relying on the output schema for return values. For a creation tool, it should provide more context on what 'saving' entails.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Notebook UUID', 'Source IDs (default: all)'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't fully clarify usage, such as what 'source_ids' refers to or the implications of 'confirm', leaving gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Generate and save mind map') and resource ('mind map'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'infographic_create' or 'slide_deck_create', which might create similar visual outputs, so it misses the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage context with 'Requires confirm=True after user approval,' suggesting a confirmation step, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'infographic_create' or other content-creation siblings. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided beyond the confirmation requirement.

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