Spr update node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond annotations (fitting=auto detects from connected pipes), but says nothing about partial-update semantics, what happens to unspecified fields, or validation on the required id.

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?

Front-loaded and compact: the core action leads, with the fitting parenthetical and the bulc rules tag trailing. No filler, though the bracketed rules line is somewhat cryptic without expansion.

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 an 8-parameter idempotent update tool with no output schema, the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries parameter detail, so the description is barely adequate. It omits update semantics and any note on what the tool returns or validates.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters with units and the fitting enum. The description's note on fitting=auto is the only added semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Update properties of an existing pipe network node") and adds the fitting behavior. The add/remove/update distinction from siblings spr_add_node and spr_remove_node is clear from the verb, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 word "existing" implies a node must already be present, but the description gives no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of when to prefer spr_add_node or spr_remove_node, and no exclusions. The bulc rules reference points at a knowledge lookup, not usage conditions for this tool.

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