sync_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the destructive behavior, the replacement of all nodes, and the Redis-only dirty flag mechanism. It also explains the persistence flow via cron, providing clear behavioral context for the agent.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the key warning and behavioral context in the first few lines, followed by a clear argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 the tool's destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive guidance: the destructive behavior, the need for complete node list, the argument details, and the backend persistence mechanism. This allows the agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'nodes' is a JSON string representing an array of full node objects, and calling it 'advanced use'. For 'id_mindmap', it provides a brief description. Since schema coverage is 0%, this adds value, though an example of the JSON format could further clarify.

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 tool syncs mindmap nodes, specifically 'Redis only + dirty flag', and distinguishes from siblings like add_nodes, delete_node, and update_node by explaining it replaces the entire node list. The verb 'sync' with resource 'mindmap nodes' is specific and differentiated from other node manipulation tools.

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 explicitly warns that the tool is destructive, replacing all nodes, and advises to always send the complete node list. It also mentions the cron flushDirtyMindmaps for persistence, implying when to use this tool (full sync) versus alternatives like add_nodes or update_node for partial updates.

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