Update existing nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that only passed fields are modified, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention required permissions, error behavior (e.g., non-existent nodeId), atomicity across multiple items, or reversibility. These gaps would matter for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences. The first lists the actions, the second clarifies the partial-update behavior. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool accepts an array of up to 200 items, but the description does not mention that it is a batch operation or address potential batch errors (e.g., partial success). There is no output schema, so return details are not required, but the description could be more complete about handling non-existent nodes or invalid fields. Overall adequate but with notable gaps for a mutating batch tool.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for most parameters (name, text, color, nodeId) but not locked. The description lists the changeable fields ('text, colour, name or lock state') and adds meaning by clarifying partial updates. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description contributes modest additional semantic clarity.

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 tool's function: 'Change text, colour, name or lock state on nodes that already exist.' This is a specific verb with a specific resource (existing nodes) and distinct fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_*, delete_nodes, and list_nodes by focusing on modification of existing nodes.

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 phrase 'nodes that already exist' provides clear context that this tool is for updating existing nodes, not creating new ones. The partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are touched') gives practical guidance on how to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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