Update Content Node

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

No annotations provided, so description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies nodes, requires graph input, outputs graph+changed ids+diff summary, and important constraint: nodes with user_verified=true reject changes. Does not cover idempotency or side effects, but sufficient for safe 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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (when to use, input, output, note). Each sentence earns its place—no fluff. Front-loaded with usage 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return format (graph, changed_node_ids, diff_summary). It provides behavioral note about validation. For a complex tool with nested object input and 5 params, this is adequately complete. Could mention error handling or edge cases, but not critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema: it lists parameters and notes optionality (new_type optional, mark_verified default true). But the schema already describes them. No significant enrichment of parameter meaning.

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 a node's content with specific examples (mail text, time, participants). It distinguishes itself from siblings implicitly by focusing on modification, while extract_content_graph extracts and analyze_impact likely analyzes. However, no explicit distinction from alternatives is given.

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?

Explicit 'when to use' section (ユーザーがノードの内容を変更するとき) and guidance to call after extract_content_graph. Includes a constraint ('user_verified=true rejects changes') but does not specify when NOT to use or compare with sibling tools.

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