node_update

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

Discloses the non-obvious replacement behavior: 'omitted keys are cleared' and the example about wiping role and labels. This goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by explaining the actual side effects and the necessity of using node_inspect first.

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 somewhat long but well-structured: purpose sentence, behavioral caveat, args/returns block. Each sentence adds value, though the args section could be more compact. It front-loads the primary purpose.

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?

For a mutation tool, it covers the essential context: what the operation does, the non-merge semantics, how to prepare the value safely, and the return type. It also gives a concrete cautionary example, which is more than sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully defines both parameters: id_or_name as node id/name and spec as the complete new spec with the crucial caveat that omitted keys are cleared. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource+fields: 'Replace a node's spec (availability, name, role, labels).' This clearly distinguishes it from node_inspect (read), node_remove (delete), and node_wait (status wait).

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 explains when and how to use: 'Replacement, not a merge' and advises fetching current spec via node_inspect, modifying, and resubmitting the whole dict. Also provides a concrete example of the pitfall (sending just Availability wipes role/labels), which serves as a clear guideline.

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