Set Native Mindmap Layout

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: it says native node positions are persisted, the root stays anchored, collapsed flags remain unchanged, and down/up layouts are unsupported. It is consistent with the annotations (mutating, not destructive), though it does not cover error or concurrency behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Each sentence adds a distinct operational fact with no 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?

The output schema and annotations reduce the description burden, and the description covers the tool's key behavioral effects. Still, for a five-parameter mutation tool with low schema description coverage, it leaves important parameter semantics and prerequisites insufficiently explained.

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 20%, and the description does not compensate for most parameters. It mentions the layout values, but docId, mindmapId, workspaceId, and expectedRevision are left almost entirely undocumented outside the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and outcome: set the layout to right, left, or balance and persist native node positions. It also clarifies that this is a native mindmap with editor-derived connectors, which helps distinguish it from generic node or style operations.

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?

It states an important unsupported case: BlockSuite does not support down/up. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings like set_mindmap_style or set_mindmap_lock, so usage guidance remains implied rather than complete.

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