mind_map_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a creation/save operation (implies mutation) and requires user confirmation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, what happens on failure, or the output format. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is appropriately sized (two sentences plus arg list) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the arg list is redundant with the schema and could be more integrated; some sentences (e.g., 'Requires confirm=True after user approval') are slightly awkward but clear. It's efficient but not perfectly structured.

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?

Given complexity (mutation tool with 4 params, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameters at a high level. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or side effects, leaving room for improvement.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Notebook UUID', 'Source IDs (default: all)'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully clarify semantics: e.g., what 'all' means for source_ids, format of UUID, or implications of confirm=false. This provides basic help but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate and save mind map.' This specifies both the action (generate and save) and resource (mind map). It distinguishes from siblings like mind_map_list (which lists rather than creates) and other creation tools (flashcards_create, infographic_create, etc.), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 description provides clear context for usage: 'Requires confirm=True after user approval.' This indicates when to use it (after user approval) and implicitly when not to (without approval). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or specify prerequisites beyond approval, such as notebook existence or source availability.

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