Create Native Mindmap

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the description only needs to add what they don't cover. It does: return identifiers, the negative scope (no document, no sidebar link), and the BlockSuite layout limitation (down/up unsupported). It omits permission requirements and whether concurrent edits are guarded beyond the optional expectedRevision note.

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 the action and scope, followed by return value, constraint, and excluded side effects. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema beyond the one exception the description must explain.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the safety profile is covered by annotations plus the excluded side effects. The gap is parameter documentation: for an 8-parameter mutation at 13% coverage, x, y, style, and workspaceId are unexplained, so the description under-serves the schema's complexity.

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 only 13% — just expectedRevision — so the description must compensate for seven undocumented parameters. It clarifies the layout domain (right/left/balance only, down/up rejected by BlockSuite) but says nothing about x/y positioning, style's 1-4 meaning, or workspaceId. Six of eight parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 and resource ("Create a native AFFiNE mindmap with one root shape in an existing document") and bounds the scope to a single root shape in a pre-existing doc. It also names the downstream sibling (add_mindmap_node) that consumes the returned ids, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a 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?

The phrase "in an existing document" plus "Does not create a document or sidebar link" routes the agent to the doc-creation tooling first, and "Returns mindmapId/rootId for add_mindmap_node" establishes the follow-on call. It stops short of naming create_doc explicitly as the prerequisite alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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