Add a node to a MindSpark map

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is communicated. The description does not add extra behavioral details (e.g., side effects, return behavior), but that is acceptable given the annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, directly stating the action and a key prerequisite. No redundant or vague wording.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does and how to prepare (calling get_map first). It does not need to describe return values. Minor omission: no mention of how errors are handled, but that is not required.

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 covers 83% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the color palette and listType rendering, but mapId has no description in the schema or tool description. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the small extra explanation does not push it higher.

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 action ('Add a single new node') and the target ('under an existing node in a map'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_node and delete_node by specifying the addition operation.

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?

It provides a concrete usage tip: 'Use get_map first to find the parent node's id.' This guides the agent on a prerequisite step. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the hint is sufficient for typical usage.

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