create_mindmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says this creates a new mindmap but does not disclose persistence, return value, required permissions, how workspacePath affects git/file watching, or how initialPlan creates nested nodes.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying what the tool creates and why.

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?

The schema is rich and fully documents parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description therefore leaves out creation side effects, return shape, and how this tool relates to downstream calls like add_node or update_plan_status.

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 title, rootLabel, initialPlan, and workspacePath. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new mindmap.' It also clarifies the intended content (coding plan, touched files, mental model/HLD), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_node or update_node that operate on an existing mindmap.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when starting a mindmap to track a coding plan, touched files, and architecture understanding. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as list_mindmaps or add_node, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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