update_element_nodes

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

The description only states that end nodes are replaced, without explaining side effects such as element connectivity changes, validation requirements, whether existing node references are checked, or how the model is affected. Annotations indicate this is a mutable but not explicitly destructive operation, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond that.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bilingual argument list is somewhat repetitive but serves to clarify meaning. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no significant padding or irrelevant detail.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, no return value description, and minimal behavioral context. An agent cannot know whether the operation succeeds silently, whether node IDs must already exist, whether replacing nodes invalidates the element, or what is returned. For a modeling operation with potential structural consequences, this is incomplete.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does provide meaningful semantics for all three arguments: element_id is the element to modify, node_i is the new I-end node, and node_j is the new J-end node. This compensates well for the bare integer schemas, though it omits constraints such as node existence or element compatibility.

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 identifies the operation as replacing the end nodes of an element, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from generic update_element or update_node tools by specifying I-end and J-end node replacement, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_element, update_node, renumber_nodes, or move_nodes. The description does not state prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and argument list.

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