nodes_update_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to do so. The PATCH verb implies a partial update, but nothing is said about permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved, side effects on connected users/traffic accounting, or the confirm-preview flow that the schema hint implies.

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?

It is short, but the content is pure generated noise ('Tags: Nodes Controller', raw route) rather than front-loaded meaning. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not economy.

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 a deeply nested body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation. It provides no information an agent could not already derive from the tool name.

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 only 50% and the description adds zero parameter information. The nested body has ~20 fields (ips, configProfile, trafficLimitBytes, integrationUuids, etc.) with no semantic explanation of required-versus-optional update behavior, and the confirm flag's preview behavior is documented only inside the schema.

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 is an auto-generated route dump: 'PATCH /api/nodes' plus 'Update node'. It names a verb-and-resource but adds nothing about what a node update covers or how it differs from siblings like nodes_bulk_nodes_update, nodes_profile_modification, or nodes_update_node variants. This is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as nodes_bulk_nodes_update (many nodes) versus nodes_get_node/nodes_create_node. The caller must infer everything from the name alone.

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