Set Native Mindmap Style

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses exactly what is mutated (nodes, sizes, layout, native connectors) and what is preserved (IDs, hierarchy, collapsed state, root anchor), which is valuable for a non-destructive-but-mutating call. It also states a failure mode (locked maps/nodes), though it says nothing about expectedRevision conflicts or permission requirements. No contradiction with destructiveHint=false or readOnlyHint=false.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and then the side effects and constraints; there is no filler. The leading 'ONE=1, TWO=2' enumeration is the one genuinely wasteful and confusing fragment.

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 described, and the mutation profile is covered. However, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage, the description should at minimum identify workspaceId and expectedRevision and clarify the style value domain; those omissions leave the agent guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it gestures at the style values via the ONE/TWO/THREE/FOUR labels but never explains what each preset looks like or that style is the integer 1-4. workspaceId and expectedRevision are not mentioned in the description at all, leaving half the parameters to the schema alone.

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?

'Switch native style' names a specific verb and resource, and the tool is clearly distinguishable from sibling set_mindmap_layout by talking about presets/connectors rather than layout structure. The 'ONE=1, TWO=2...' mapping is cryptic phrasing that muddies rather than sharpens the purpose statement.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this applies a preset to an existing mindmap, and 'Rejects locked maps/nodes' gives a precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as set_mindmap_layout or set_mindmap_lock, which is a real gap given how similar those siblings are.

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