update_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that notes are appended with timestamps and clarifies the note's purpose, but it omits the fact that the 'doc' parameter is also updatable and does not mention any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. This is partially transparent but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by an explanatory note about the note field. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The tool is moderately complex (6 params, 1 enum, no output schema), and the description covers the main fields and usage guidance. However, it omits the 'doc' parameter from the list of updatable fields and does not describe return values or error behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to title, description, status, and note (especially the note's purpose), but completely omits the 'doc' parameter. Since the schema provides a description for doc, the description partially compensates but is not fully comprehensive.

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' on the resource 'node' with specific fields (title, description, status, note). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_node by explicitly mentioning that standalone notes should be created via create_node instead of using this tool's note field.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It explains that notes are for the node's own status trail and that standalone information should be a separate node via create_node. This directly tells the agent when not to use update_node and names the alternative.

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