update_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies that no LLM call occurs and no metering is applied, but omits other behavioral aspects such as whether the update is instantly visible, any side effects on node trees, or error conditions (e.g., if node doesn't exist).

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 well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key distinguishing features. 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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, prerequisites (e.g., node must exist), or how this tool interacts with siblings like auto_expand or retry_node. Additional context about the operation's scope and expected behavior is missing.

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 50%, meaning some parameters (note, modelId, isCollapsed, modelProvider) lack schema descriptions. The description adds partial value by listing the fields (content, note, type, collapsed flag, model), but does not explain each parameter's syntax, constraints, or how 'model' maps to modelId/modelProvider.

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 explicitly states the tool applies a structural update to a node, listing specific fields (content, note, type, collapsed flag, model). The addition of 'No LLM call, no metering' distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like submit_node or retry_node that involve LLM processing.

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 when to use (for manual structural updates without LLM) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where other sibling tools like create_node or delete_node would be more appropriate.

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