Reparent Native Mindmap Node

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

Goes well past the annotations: it enumerates rejection cases (root moves, cycles, missing or foreign IDs), states that collapsed state is preserved, and explains the concurrency model — one shared MCP server serializes workspace mutations while independent servers and native editors have no compare-and-swap protection. That is exactly the operational context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) cannot convey.

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 move semantics and tightly written; every sentence adds information. The concurrency sentence is telegraphic ('independent servers and native editors have no compare-and-swap protection'), forcing some unpacking, but nothing is filler.

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 no explanation, and the mutation's rejection rules, subtree behavior, and concurrency caveats are covered. The remaining gap is workspaceId and the identity parameters, which are neither described nor explained in prose.

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 14%, so the description carries most of the burden. It does define beforeId's sibling-ordering role and constrains parentId to the same mindmap, but docId, mindmapId, nodeId, and workspaceId are left entirely to their bare string schemas, so roughly half the parameters gain no meaning here.

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 (move/reparent) and resource (a node with all descendants) plus a hard scope constraint: the destination parent must live in the SAME native mindmap. That scope clause alone separates it from update_mindmap_node and add_mindmap_node, which do not perform subtree relocation.

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?

Use is implied by the verb (relocating an existing subtree) and the beforeId note hints at sibling reordering, but no sibling tool is named as the alternative and no when-not-to-use case is given. An agent must infer that plain field edits belong to update_mindmap_node rather than this tool.

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