node_update

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

The description clearly states that 'spec becomes the node's entire spec, and omitted keys are cleared.' This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The example concretely shows the destructive nature of omitting keys, which is critical for correct use.

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 concise, with a clear introductory sentence, a warning paragraph, and a brief parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is 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 description covers the key behavior (replacement vs merge), return type, and provides a usage workflow. It does not document error conditions, authentication, or all possible spec fields, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema for returns, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that id_or_name is 'The node id or name' and spec is 'The complete new node spec (see description — omitted keys are cleared).' It also notes the return type is bool. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well, though the structure of the spec object is not detailed (acceptable for a generic object).

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 'Replace a node's spec (availability, name, role, labels).' It uses a specific verb ('Replace') and identifies the resource (node's spec). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_inspect (fetch) and node_list (list).

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 explicitly says 'Replacement, not a merge' and advises to 'Fetch the current spec via node_inspect (its Spec key), modify it, and resubmit the whole dict.' It provides clear when-to-use guidance and mentions an alternative (node_inspect). The example of sending just {"Availability": "drain"} illustrates a caution.

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