treeflow_update_leaf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the tool updates an existing leaf, but does not disclose partial-update semantics, whether at least one mutable field is required, permission requirements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and target without unnecessary filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of the tool's purpose.

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 a simple update tool with three parameters and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral expectations like whether the node must exist, whether updates are partial or full, and what the response contains.

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 leaf_id, config, and canvas_position. The description adds a high-level mapping ('contenido, configuración o posición') but does not provide meaningful extra semantics beyond what the input schema already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb ('Actualiza') and a clear resource ('nodo (leaf) existente'), and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create/delete/list operations by specifying it modifies an existing leaf. The mention of content, configuration, and position makes the scope concrete.

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 implies this tool is for updating an existing leaf, and the tool name reinforces that. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling update tools like treeflow_update_user or treeflow_update_voice_config, nor does it provide exclusion conditions.

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