updateNode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'update' without explaining whether updates are partial or full replacement, how null fields are handled, what happens if the node doesn't exist, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with 7 parameters.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add behavioral context, so it doesn't fully earn a 5 for structure.

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 an update tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain update semantics, parameter interactions, or error cases. The schema provides field names but not the behavioral context needed to use the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since every parameter is already documented with descriptions (e.g., 'new node name', 'new tags list'), the description does not need to compensate.

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 tool's purpose: updating an existing node in the knowledge graph. The verb 'update' and resource 'existing node' are specific and differentiate it from sibling tools like addNode and removeNode. However, it lacks detail on what aspects of the node can be updated, so it doesn't fully distinguish from potential variants.

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. It does not mention that addNode is for creating nodes, nor does it discuss any prerequisites or contraindications. The only hint is the tool name itself, which is insufficient.

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