Update Native Mindmap Node

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-read-only, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: hierarchy and IDs are preserved and geometry is recalculated, with the editor potentially re-refining text dimensions. It says nothing about stale-write protection or revision conflicts, which is the real risk for a write tool and which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the mutation and its scope. The closing remark about the editor refining text dimensions is slightly cryptic but still conveys a real caveat about geometry fidelity.

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 core mutation semantics are present. With 7 parameters at 14% schema coverage and no guidance on revision conflicts or the workspace/mindmap scoping, it falls short of fully arming an agent to call this correctly.

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% (just expectedRevision), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies the intent of 'text' (replace) and 'collapsed' (set), but leaves docId, mindmapId, nodeId, and workspaceId — the identity/routing parameters — entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Replace a native node's text and/or set collapsed') and scopes it to native nodes only. It implicitly distinguishes itself from add_mindmap_node and reparent_mindmap_node by noting IDs and hierarchy are preserved, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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: the reader infers you use this for content/collapse edits rather than structural changes (reparent_mindmap_node) or styling (set_mindmap_style). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative despite several adjacent mindmap siblings.

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