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

Beyond what annotations provide (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses valuable behavioral traits: partial updates ('Only provided fields are updated') and deep-merge semantics for locale dicts and custom_metadata. This adds context that the annotations do not cover. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the main operation and resource, followed by the critical merge semantics in a compact paragraph. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 moderately complex update tool with 6 parameters, an output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and the tricky merge rules. Minor omissions, such as error handling for a missing node_id or invalid locale keys, are not critical given the schema and output schema context.

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?

With only 67% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the merge behavior for title and custom_metadata, and it clarifies that text follows the same locale-dict pattern. This adds meaningful semantic value over the raw schema properties.

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, resource, and selector: 'Update a content node by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_node (create) and read_node (read) without requiring the agent to inspect the schema.

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 the tool is for modifying an existing node, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_node or how it differs from update_prompt/update_tool. No exclusions or scenario guidance are provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate usage context.

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