update_node

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

The description discloses the sentinel behavior for unchanged values (None for coordinates, -1 for ID) and includes an example, which adds useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention side effects, ID conflict behavior, coordinate units, or whether the modification is in-place, though the annotations (all false) do not contradict the description.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary, an Args block, and a relevant example. The bilingual text adds slight redundancy but remains efficient; every sentence serves a purpose with no filler.

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 a five-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema-level descriptions, the description covers all invocation-critical details: parameter meanings, default behaviors, and a concrete example. It stops short of describing return values or potential errors, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 must carry all parameter meaning. It fully explains every parameter: node_id is the existing ID, x/y/z are new coordinates with None meaning unchanged, and new_id uses -1 to mean unchanged. The example further clarifies usage.

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 ('Modify') and resource ('an existing node'), and specifies the two modification targets: coordinates and ID. It is specific enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_node_id or move_nodes.

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 such as update_node_id, renumber_nodes, or move_nodes. The usage context is only implied by the modification semantics; there are no exclusions or alternative routing cues.

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