Update Annotation Node

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates an update operation (implying mutation) and a fallback behavior, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether updates are reversible), error conditions (e.g., when nodeId is invalid), or any required authorizations. This leaves the agent guessing about safe invocation.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary action. It is appropriately short given the tool's simplicity, but could expand on parameter semantics without becoming verbose. The structure earns points for efficiency.

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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected return values, error handling, and parameter formats. The current description covers only nodeId omission behavior, leaving substantial gaps that hinder confident use, especially for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has four parameters (nodeId, title, content, role) with zero description coverage. The description only explains the behavior of nodeId when omitted. No meaning is added for the other three parameters, including the role enum, which could benefit from hinting at typical values. This is a critical gap for correct parameter filling.

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 action ('update an existing annotation node') and the specific resource. It also adds a behavior note about nodeId omission, making the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_annotation_node or get_selected_node, leaving some ambiguity.

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 such as create_annotation_node or get_selected_node. The note about nodeId omission is a usage hint but not a guideline for tool selection. For a tool with many siblings, this lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly.

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