plan_update_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the key behavior that the MCP fetches and preserves the complete current object, indicating non-destructive planning and partial patch semantics. It does not cover permissions or side effects, but the most important operational detail is stated.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds a meaningful behavioral detail. No redundant information or filler words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

While the output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description omits parameter-level details and usage guidance. For a tool with three required parameters and zero schema description coverage, more context would be needed to ensure correct invocation, especially given the nested 'patch' object.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'panel' or 'node_id', nor the format of 'patch' beyond the partial-update hint. This leaves agents to infer parameter purposes solely from names, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plan') and resource ('node update'), clarifying it is a planning step for node modifications. The qualifier 'partial' distinguishes it from full updates and aligns with the fetch-and-preserve behavior, setting it apart from sibling tools like plan_create_node and plan_delete_resource.

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 implies use for partial node updates but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like plan_update_core or plan_update_host. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage context implicit.

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