add_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not say whether the parent must already exist, whether top-level creation uses parentId='root', whether a new node ID is returned for chaining children, or whether the call is reversible. The only behavioral hint is the type taxonomy, which duplicates the schema enum rather than adding new information.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence is largely an enumeration of enum values already in the schema, which slightly reduces its value but does not hurt readability.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: the return value (presumably the new node ID, needed for adding children), validation behavior when parentId does not exist, and any constraints tying parameters to node types. An agent can guess the happy path but not the edge cases.

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 86%, so the schema already documents mindmapId, parentId, label, status, notes, and files thoroughly. The description restates the type enum values but adds no new semantics such as which types accept 'files' or whether status applies only to task nodes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a child node under a parent node') and enumerates the supported node kinds, so an agent knows exactly what it creates. It never names a sibling like update_node or remove_node, so differentiation is only implied by the verb 'Add'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus update_node, link_nodes, or log_file_touch, and no prerequisites such as the parent existing or which node types are appropriate for which workflow. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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