Create NodeLand map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the map is persistent, shareable, returns a URL to give the user, and warns against inventing JSON/coordinates. However, it omits details like permission requirements, failure modes, or whether existing maps are overwritten. It adds some useful context but not rich behavioral coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, constraints, and post-success action. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use, a critical constraint, and the next step after success (give the URL). It does not describe the full return structure or error handling, but it adequately addresses the main operational need.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description only reinforces the use of concepts/relations and a named template, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 creates a persistent, shareable NodeLand map, with specific use cases (mind map, concept map, organogram, study map). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_map and get_map by focusing on creation of a new, standalone artifact.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants a mind map, concept map, organogram, or study map they can open later and edit by hand.' It also provides a concrete 'do not' instruction (invent Cytoscape JSON/coordinates). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for adding to existing maps, so it falls short of a 5.

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