updateClarityLandscapeNodeRename a process landscape node or update its owner label (team manager or above for team processes; organization admin for areas)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| orgId | Yes | ||
| nodeId | Yes | ||
| ownerLabel | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses permission requirements and the two types of updates, adding context beyond the annotations (which only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). It does not contradict annotations, and the permission note is a valuable behavioral detail. Yet it doesn't cover potential side effects like clearing ownerLabel or behavior when both fields are omitted.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and packs the permission note into parentheses. Every word contributes to purpose or usage guidance; no filler.
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 simple partial-update tool, the description covers the main operations and permissions. Given no output schema, return values need not be explained. However, it misses the nuance that both name and ownerLabel are optional and at least one should be provided to have an effect, and doesn't note that ownerLabel can be cleared with null. Slight gap.
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 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by linking 'rename' to the name parameter and 'owner label' to ownerLabel, and adds permission context. orgId/nodeId are not explicitly described, but their purpose as identifiers is self-evident from the names and required status. It doesn't mention that ownerLabel can be null to clear the label, which the schema allows.
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 uses specific verbs 'Rename' and 'update' with the resource 'process landscape node', and explicitly names the two updateable aspects (name, owner label). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like createClarityLandscapeNode, deleteClarityLandscapeNode, and setClarityLandscapeNodePlacement.
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 usage contexts: renaming a node or updating its owner label, and adds permission prerequisites (team manager or above for team processes; org admin for areas). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other node operations (e.g., placement), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.
With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.
The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.