update_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that properties MERGES rather than replaces, that remove_properties is applied after the merge and wins on key collision, and that removing an absent key is a no-op. It omits any statement about permissions, reversibility, or the effect of the `mode` field (append vs replace), which is a behavioral trait, not just a parameter.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the exclusions, then the merge semantics. Efficient overall, though the trailing '-- pin R5' reference is unexplained noise and the nested parenthetical about merge ordering is dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the highest-risk behavior (merge vs replace, removal precedence). The main gap is the unexplained `mode` interaction with `body`, which affects what actually gets written.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains properties and remove_properties semantics and precedence well, but leaves `id`, `body`, `mode` (the append/replace enum), and `status` entirely unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a node's') and enumerates the mutable fields (body/status/properties). It explicitly distinguishes itself from rename_node, create_edge, and delete_edge, so an agent can tell it apart from its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states what it cannot do (title, edges) and routes the agent to the correct alternative for each excluded case (rename_node / create_edge / delete_edge). This is genuine when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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