update_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool performs updates or appends under a heading, but fails to describe behavior such as whether it creates missing sections, how it handles existing content, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and scope efficiently.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 0% parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description leaves important details unexplained such as mode semantics and defaults. While an output schema exists, the description still feels incomplete for effective invocation.

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 maps section_heading to 'specific section heading', content to 'content', and node_path to 'node markdown file', but does not explain mode or workspace_path. With 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is not fully adequate.

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 updates or appends content under a section heading in a node markdown file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_module_node by emphasizing targeted modification rather than creation.

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 'surgically update or append' implies a precise, targeted edit for existing content, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_module_node or search_nodes, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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