edit_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the PATCH-style partial update behavior, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and style. While very short, it avoids unnecessary words. Could be slightly expanded to cover more context without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, no annotations, 4 parameters with 0% schema description, and a complex operation (partial update of a nested object), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention return values, error conditions, required permissions, or the format of nested fields.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema's structure. The phrase 'only include changed fields' applies globally but does not explain the meaning or constraints of 'title', 'config', or 'position'. The nested 'config' and 'position' objects are completely undocumented.

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 node'), the resource ('node'), and the update style ('PATCH-style, only include changed fields'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'add_node' and 'delete_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 implies partial updates via 'PATCH-style' and 'only include changed fields', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_node' (for creating) or 'edit_note' (for notes). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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