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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does real work: it discloses that setting `key` to null makes the node un-findable (a destructive/orphaning side effect) and that scores continue training against the new embedding, plus it states the return shape. It omits permissions, behavior on a missing node, and embedding dimension constraints, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the endpoint and resource, then each clause maps to one parameter with no filler sentences. It is somewhat compressed into backtick shorthand, which costs a little readability but wastes no words.

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 an existing output schema, the description covers the destructive null-case, the side effect on training scores, and the return keys. Remaining gaps (auth needs, error behavior, embedding constraints) are minor given the output schema already handles the response shape.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three params well: `nid` as the path target, `key` as a new path with null=remove and omit=keep, and `emb` as a new embedding with omit=keep. The one weak point is that the schema declares `key` default as "" (empty string) while the description frames removal as null, a subtle mismatch an agent could trip on.

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 up front ('PATCH /nodes/{nid}: change a node'), which is unambiguous about what mutates. It implicitly distinguishes itself from edge siblings by operating on node ids, but never names an alternative (update_edge, delete_node), so separation relies on the reader inferring from the resource noun.

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 explains parameter mechanics but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never references the neighboring update_edge/put_edge/delete_node tools. An agent must infer the selection criteria entirely on its own.

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