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

Goes beyond annotations by specifying that only provided fields are updated, and that title, text, and custom_metadata use merge semantics rather than replacement. This is valuable behavioral context. It does not discuss error behavior or consequences of null values, but the core nuances are disclosed.

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 tight sentences: the operation is front-loaded, followed by two semantic rules that add real value. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Rich enough given the output schema and annotations: merge semantics, partial updates, and locale format are all covered. Minor gaps include behavior on nonexistent node_id and whether explicitly passing null clears a field, but these are not critical for basic correct invocation.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, and the description enhances this by explaining the locale-dict format and merge behavior for title/text/custom_metadata — especially compensating for custom_metadata, which has no schema description. The partial-update rule also clarifies how all parameters behave.

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?

Description states the exact operation ('Update a content node by its ID') with a specific verb and resource, and clearly differentiates from siblings like create_node, read_node, and update_prompt/update_data_source by naming the content-node resource and ID-based targeting.

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 intended use case is clear: update an existing content node by ID, with partial-update semantics. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context strongly implies creation should go to create_node and retrieval to read_node.

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