node_update

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

The description goes beyond the provided annotations by exposing the crucial non-merge, overwrite behavior: omitted keys are cleared, and it gives a concrete example of how sending just {"Availability": "drain"} wipes role and labels. This is exactly the kind of 'what gets destroyed' context that keeps an agent from making a destructive mistake.

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 concise and well organized: purpose first, then the critical replacement warning, and then parameters. The example reinforces the warning without excessive padding. It earns high marks, though a slightly tighter back half could ship slightly better.

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 description covers the essential operational flow (node_inspect + resubmit) and the return value (bool). It does not specify accepted values for id_or_name or preconditions such as cluster mode/manager availability, but for the core task of safely replacing a node spec it is largely complete.

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 spec parameter is well explained: it must be the complete new spec and omitted keys are cleared. However, there is 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain the id_or_name parameter beyond the bare name, leaving uncertainty about whether it accepts an ID, a name, or both, or what formats are valid.

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 purpose with a specific verb 'Replace' and identifies the resource ('a node's spec') and the relevant fields (availability, name, role, labels). It distinguishes itself naturally from sibling tools like node_inspect and node_remove by focusing on spec replacement.

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 gives actionable usage guidance: fetch the current spec via node_inspect, modify it, and resubmit the entire dict. It also warns not to send a partial spec such as only changing Availability. It does not explicitly name when not to use the tool or alternative tools, but the context provided is strong.

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