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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that this is a partial update ('Only the fields you provide are changed; others are preserved'), which goes beyond the annotations. It also mentions the live document context and the need for a valid editor access token. The annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description adds complementary value without contradiction.

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 three concise, purposeful sentences. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the critical merge behavior and then the prerequisite and authentication note. No filler or redundant repetition of schema content is present.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, how it behaves (partial update), how to obtain valid node IDs, and what authentication is required. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but the schema and annotations cover most remaining operational details.

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 all parameters. The description's emphasis on partial updates reinforces the meaning of the 'changes' object, but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Updates properties of an existing node in a live Trident document.' The phrase 'existing node' distinguishes it from add_node and delete_node, and the additional detail 'Only the fields you provide are changed; others are preserved' clarifies the exact scope of the operation.

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 guidance on prerequisites: 'Use get_document_summary to get all node IDs before calling this' and states the token requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select the correct sibling in most cases.

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