node_integrations_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals no behavior beyond the fact that an update occurs. It does not mention side effects, whether the operation can be reversed, whether restartNodes affects nodes, or any permission requirements. This is a significant transparency 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 extremely short—only four words—and while it contains no fluff, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A mutation with five parameters and no annotations merits more structural detail, such as clarifying the scope of the update or highlighting the optional fields.

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 update tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a five-parameter input, the description is too minimal to be complete. It provides no context about expected behavior, return values, side effects, or when to use it. The schema covers parameter definitions, but the tool's overall operation is under-documented.

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 itself documents all five parameters and their meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update a node integration'. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like node_integrations_create and node_integrations_delete by the operation type, though it does not specify what aspects of the integration are updatable beyond what the schema already shows.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of conditions that should be checked before updating. The context is implied by the tool name and sibling list, but the description itself provides no actionable usage direction.

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