import_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says 'Import', which implies mutation, but it does not disclose whether importing replaces, appends, or merges the current map; it also does not mention prerequisites, response shape, or potential side effects. The description adds only the 'running instance' context.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The verb, object, format, and destination are all front-loaded, making it instantly scannable by an agent.

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 tool is overall simple enough to be called correctly from the description plus the comprehensive input schema and presence of an output schema. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context around import side effects, but this is not essential for basic invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage and already explains map_json, insert_mode, and insert_node_id in detail. The description adds little beyond repeating 'canonical JSON', so the schema is doing the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Import'), resource ('mind map'), and target ('running Freeplane instance'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling export_map by making the directionality explicit: this tool brings data in through canonical JSON, while export_map would presumably produce it.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for injecting a canonical JSON mind map into a live Freeplane instance. It does not explicitly say when to use export_map instead or mention exclusions, but the import/export contrast is strongly inferable from the sibling name and the mention of the canonical JSON format.

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