node_update

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that replacement is not a merge and omitted keys are cleared, with a concrete example ('sending just {"Availability": "drain"} would also wipe the node's role and labels'). This directly discloses what gets destroyed.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear example and an args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 action, replacement semantics, parameter meanings, prerequisite (node_inspect), and return type. Given the tool's complexity and sparse annotations, this is 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by defining both parameters. id_or_name is described, and spec is explained as the complete new spec with a reference to the clearing behavior.

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 opens with 'Replace a node's spec (availability, name, role, labels)', clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling node tools like node_remove and node_inspect.

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?

It provides clear procedural guidance: fetch the current spec via node_inspect, modify it, and resubmit the whole dict. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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