update_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update existing nodes' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens to unspecified fields, error handling, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it conveys, though it could benefit from additional context.

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?

Given the complexity of updating nodes in a knowledge graph, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid update, how conflicts are handled, what the response contains, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with rich sibling alternatives, more context is needed.

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 fully documents the single 'nodes' parameter and its nested structure. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high. No compensation is needed or provided.

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 action ('Update') and target resource ('existing nodes in the knowledge graph'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_artifact' or 'update_edges', which update different resource types in the same system.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple 'update_' sibling tools for different resource types (e.g., update_artifact, update_edges), but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for choosing this specific node-updating tool.

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