nodes_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether updates are partial or full replacement, whether unspecified fields are left unchanged, whether the node must be enabled/disabled, or what happens on invalid UUID. It also doesn't mention that some fields are nullable to clear values, which is a behavioral nuance.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place with no waste. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add behavioral or usage context, which slightly reduces the score from 5.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update semantics (partial vs full), whether the node must exist, or what the response contains. The schema covers parameter names but not the operational context an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 15 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description doesn't compensate with any additional context about how parameters interact (e.g., whether all fields are optional updates or if some are required together).

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 'Update an existing node' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (node), and the schema confirms it targets a node by UUID. It distinguishes from siblings like nodes_create and nodes_delete, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is clear and specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nodes_bulk_update or nodes_bulk_actions. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., node must exist, UUID required) or exclusions. The context signals show many node-related siblings, but the description leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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