node_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates are destructive, permission requirements, or whether properties are merged or replaced. The example only hints at possible attributes.

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?

A single sentence with an example; no redundant text. However, it is slightly terse for a tool with nested objects and output schema, but still efficient.

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?

Many sibling tools exist, and an output schema is present but not described. The description lacks details on return values, error conditions, and project context (project_id scope). It feels incomplete for an update operation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'node attributes' and gives an example with 'name' and 'properties', but does not explain node_id (identifier), updates object scope (additional properties allowed), or optional project_id. The example is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'node attributes', with an illustrative example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like node_create, node_get, and node_delete by specifying the update action on an existing node.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., node_create for creation, node_get for reading). The description lacks context about prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer.

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