Create a MindSpark map from an outline

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the creation behavior is expected. The description adds valuable detail that the first line becomes the central topic, which is not implicit in the annotations. It does not describe return values or side effects, but given the non-destructive nature and simple creation action, the added context is sufficient.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and then provides key differentiators and format details. Every sentence contributes to clarity, making it efficient and well-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 the tool's simplicity, the absence of an output schema, and existing annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, input format, and central topic behavior. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., map ID), but this is not critical for a creation tool and the context of sibling tools (like get_map) implies typical behavior. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 both parameters with descriptive text (outline format and title override). The description further clarifies that the outline's first line becomes the central topic and mentions Markdown formatting (bold, italic, code), which goes beyond the schema's basic syntax. This additional context enhances understanding of how to use the 'outline' parameter effectively.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Create' as the action and 'mind map' as the resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_node and update_node by calling itself the 'preferred way' to build from scratch, avoiding the need for node-by-node construction. The mention of 'central topic' further clarifies its specific role.

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 explicitly recommends this tool as the preferred method for building a map from scratch, providing clear usage direction. It contrasts with the alternative (constructing nodes one at a time) and gives format hints (Markdown, bold/italic/code), making the use case unmistakable. The lack of a direct 'when not to use' is compensated by the explicit preference statement.

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