nodes_update

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

Annotations declare a non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing else: it does not clarify whether this is a partial or full replace, whether omitted fields are cleared, what permissions are needed, or that only uuid is required among 19 fields. For a mutation tool this is a large unaddressed gap.

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?

Two words are technically concise but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity; there is no front-loaded useful information because there is no information at all.

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 a 19-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent has essentially no basis for calling this correctly beyond guessing from field names.

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 description coverage is 0% across 19 parameters, so the schema carries no prose the description could lean on. The description mentions no parameter at all, not even the required uuid or any of the complex fields (ips, configProfile, tags). Zero compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name: a generic verb ('Update') plus resource ('node') with no scope, no field-level detail, and no differentiation from siblings such as nodes_bulk_update. An agent cannot tell from this text alone what makes nodes_update distinct.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (nodes_bulk_update, nodes_bulk_profile_modification), and no prerequisites or conditions. The agent is left to infer everything from the tool name.

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