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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: node_updates is merged into the node record, implying a partial update rather than a full replacement. It also notes the node must be connected. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but the merge semantics are well covered.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action and endpoint, the merge semantics with examples, and the prerequisite read step. Front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the update mechanism, example payloads, and the recommended read-before-write workflow. It doesn't describe return behavior or error cases, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of the prerequisite guidance.

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 node_id and node_updates are already documented. The description adds value by giving multiple concrete examples of node_updates payloads and explaining the merge behavior, going beyond the schema's single example.

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a connected node's settings'), provides explicit examples (pause, rename, priority), and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like restart_node or disconnect_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?

The description gives a clear prerequisite: 'Read the current record with list_nodes(detailed) first.' This tells the agent the recommended workflow and points to the correct sibling for reading. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient.

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