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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description's 'Update' is consistent with those flags. The phrase 'using privacy-filtered project metadata' adds some contextual color, but the description does not explain idempotency implications, required idempotencyKey behavior, or what happens on repeated invocation. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is an acceptable but not rich disclosure.

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 a single sentence and is concise, but it is terse to the point of being unhelpful. It front-loads the verb and resource, yet the awkward 'hosted submit node instruction' phrasing and lack of substantive detail mean the available space is not used effectively.

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?

This is a six-parameter write operation with a nested details object, three required fields, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. A one-sentence description that does not explain the object being updated, the meaning of the nested fields, or the role of the idempotencyKey is far from complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the six parameters, but it does not. 'Privacy-filtered project metadata' could relate to projectId at best, but nodeId, idempotencyKey, sessionId, executionId, and the nested details object are completely unexplained. The agent cannot determine what values to pass or what status, summary, or referenceIds mean.

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 names an action ('Update') and a resource ('hosted submit node instruction'), and this resource does not appear verbatim among siblings, giving some differentiation. However, 'hosted submit node instruction' is never defined, and the tool name ('submit_node_instruction') suggests 'submit' as a verb while the description says 'update,' creating ambiguity about what the tool actually accomplishes.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many related write tools in the sibling list, such as submit_project_task, start_node_work, update_context_note, or project_write. The only contextual hint is 'using privacy-filtered project metadata,' which does not explain selection criteria or when not to use the tool.

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