generate_mind_map

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the safety and side-effect information. It clearly states the tool 'save' something, mentions the execution mode ('RPC-backed (no browser)'), and discloses the type of return value ('saved mind-map id and its JSON structure'). Permission requirements or effects on the notebook are absent, but the explicit save side effect and return description cover the core behavioral transparency needs.

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 short and dense: two sentences with the primary action first, then a side-effect/return note. The 'RPC-backed (no browser)' clause is relevant and economical. The only slight awkwardness is the parenthetical, but it earns its place.

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 a 5-param schema with full descriptions and the description naming the saved id and JSON shape, the tool is largely callable. It does not state what further uses the returned JSON has, but for a generation tool that is enough. The description covers the key missing parts beyond the schema: execution side-effect and return value. A 4 seems fair.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains them. The description adds only a generic reference to 'a notebook's sources', which maps to notebook_id/notebook_url but does not disclose any extra syntactic or semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action—'Generate and save a mind map'—and states the source ('a notebook's sources'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like generate_study_aid or content_generate. The resource and verb are concrete and unambiguous.

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 implies its use case (when you want a mind map from notebook sources) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools or how to choose between the two notebook identifiers. The context is inferable rather than spelled out.

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