generate_mind_map

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 does disclose one useful side effect — that the result is persisted as a note in the notebook — which implies a write operation. But it says nothing about permissions, whether an existing note is overwritten, source requirements, or how long generation takes.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action and outcome front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves.

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 generation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should say more about what is produced, where the note lands, and what the notebook_id must reference. As written, an agent knows the gist but not the operational details.

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% and the single parameter 'notebook_id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'no caderno' loosely implies the notebook is the target, but it does not clarify the identifier format or whether the notebook must already exist.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Gera um mapa mental') plus an outcome ('salva como nota no caderno'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling generate_* tools beyond the implicit resource name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus generate_summary_report, generate_data_table, or any other sibling generator. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no indication of when a mind map is the appropriate artifact.

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