update_project_nodes

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

The description contradicts itself: updating to 'true' vs 'inactive'. Annotations show destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with a state update, but the self-contradiction reduces transparency. No mention of return values or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, fairly concise, but the contradictory statement makes the second sentence confusing and reduces 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?

Lacks return value explanation despite having an output schema. Missing prerequisites, permissions, or error conditions. The complexity of conditional logic is not fully addressed.

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?

Input schema has one parameter 'model' with nested fields; the 'nodes' field has a clear description covering omission behavior. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, and schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level parameter.

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 'Update the active state of the given nodes to true', which specifies a verb and resource, but the following sentence introduces contradictory behavior ('all the nodes become inactive') that undermines clarity. It does not distinguish from siblings like read_project_nodes or update_project.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other update or node-related tools. No exclusions or context for appropriate use.

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