update_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that spot changes are refused while the node is rented, that enabling spot clears a custom price, and that only changed fields should be sent. It stops short of covering auth/permission requirements, failure behavior for partial updates, or what the tool returns.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('change several things on a node at once') and uses parentheticals for constraints. Every clause adds useful information, though the compact format makes it slightly less scannable than a short structured list.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: which fields can change, key side effects and refusals, and the requirement to confirm with the user. Missing details like permission requirements, node_id description, and return/error behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains the meaning and constraints of spot, available, and price_per_hour (USD per hour or null). The node_id parameter is only implied by 'on a node', and 'available' is left as a simple boolean without further context, but the added semantic detail elsewhere is substantial.

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 uses a specific verb ('change') and resource ('a node'), and lists the exact fields that can be updated. The phrase 'several things at once' implicitly distinguishes it from single-field siblings like set_node_available and set_node_price, but it does not name those alternatives explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It provides clear context that the tool is for changing multiple fields in one call and adds important usage constraints ('Send only what changes', 'Confirm changes with the user first'). However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus the dedicated single-field setters, so the agent must infer the routing.

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