node_update

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

Annotations show it's not read-only and not destructive. Description adds crucial context that it's a full replacement (not merge) and omitted keys are cleared. This goes beyond annotations and helps agent understand side effects.

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?

Description is well-structured: purpose first, then behavioral details, then param descriptions. It is informative without being verbose. Slightly lengthy but earns its sentences.

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?

Given the complexity (nested object) and presence of output schema (bool), description covers the key points: replacement semantics, workflow, and return type. No major gaps noted.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining id_or_name and spec (with warning about omitted keys). But spec structure is not detailed (it's an object), leaving some ambiguity. Example partially helps.

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 clearly states it replaces a node's spec (availability, name, role, labels). It uses specific verb 'replace' and distinguishes from sibling tools like node_inspect (which fetches) and node_remove (which deletes).

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 advises to fetch current spec via node_inspect before updating and warns of replacement behavior. Provides an example of omitted keys clearing fields. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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