update_graph_nodeUpdate properties of an existing node in a deployed graph project. Only send the fields you want to change — unspecified fields remain unchanged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Properties to update (partial update) | |
| entity_id | Yes | The node's entity_id | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (UUID) | |
| entity_type | Yes | Entity key (e.g., 'person', 'concept') | |
| environment | No | Environment: staging or production (default: staging) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying partial update semantics ('unspecified fields remain unchanged') and that it targets an existing node, which is not disclosed in the annotations.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place. The action is front-loaded, and the critical partial-update guidance is included without unnecessary verbosity. No repetition of schema or annotation content.
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 mutation tool with 5 parameters (4 required), the description covers the essential invariant (partial update) and target scope ('deployed graph project'). Annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema documents parameters and default environment. Missing are explicit prerequisites like authentication or existence checks, but these are not necessary given the tool's simplicity.
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%, giving baseline 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying the partial update behavior of the 'data' parameter ('Only send the fields you want to change'), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Properties to update (partial update)' and helps the agent construct a correct request.
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 a specific verb ('Update properties') and identifies the resource ('existing node in a deployed graph project'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_graph_node, delete_graph_node, or get_graph_node, making its purpose immediately obvious.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: updating an existing node in a deployed graph project, with the key guideline to only send fields one wishes to change. It implies this is the update counterpart to creation/deletion but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.
Most tools are clearly differentiated by domain (project vs graph_project) and action (create, get, list, delete). The main ambiguity is get_project vs get_project_info, which both claim to return detailed project information. Otherwise tool boundaries are clear.
The server follows a strong verb_noun convention, with parallel naming for graph and non-graph tools (create_project/create_graph_project, deploy_staging/deploy_graph_staging). Minor deviations include bulk_create_graph_nodes and fulltext_search_graph, but patterns remain predictable.
48 tools is a heavy surface, even when accounting for the two parallel product domains (relational and graph). Many tools are near-duplicates across domains, and the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold that feels manageable. It would benefit from consolidation or sub-servers.
Both project types have full life-cycle coverage: create, schema management, deployment, rollback, and deletion, plus graph data operations including bulk, search, and traversal. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_graph_relationship and the redundant get_project/get_project_info pair, but agents can accomplish core workflows.