miro_create_mindmap_node

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

Annotations provide no hints (no readonly/destructive), so the description carries the burden. It states 'create' (mutation) and covers parent_id and node_view, but does not disclose error handling, limits, or side effects like ignored x/y for children. Acceptable but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 the presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description covers core usage. It could mention board_id context or how to verify creation, but it's sufficient for a create tool.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining when to use parent_id (root vs child) and providing the default for node_view, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Create a mindmap node' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like miro_create_card or miro_create_sticky by focusing on mindmap nodes. The details about root vs child nodes further clarify purpose.

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 instructions: 'Omit parent_id for root; add parent_id for children' and mentions node_view defaults. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context of mindmap-specific tools and the name itself guides usage adequately.

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