modify_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool modifies a node, which inherently implies a write operation, but it does not reveal side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or any consequences of the modification. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and supported actions. There is no redundant information or unnecessary embellishment.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several overlapping sibling tools. The description only covers the basic action and parameter mapping, but lacks usage guidance, behavioral context, and details about parameter object structures. This is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand when and how to use this tool reliably.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by mapping operations to parameters: 'rename' corresponds to 'name', 'reposition' to 'position', and 'change parameters' to 'parameters'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types and titles, although it does not clarify the structure of the 'parameters' object or the format of the 'position' array beyond the schema's own definitions.

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 ('Modify an existing node') and lists the specific supported operations: rename, reposition, or change parameters. This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like rename_node, move_node, or set_parameters, which perform similar individual operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the dedicated sibling tools (rename_node, move_node, set_parameter). It does not offer any context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without clear decision-making information for tool selection.

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