update_node_id

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

Annotations are all false but do not clarify consequences. The description discloses only that an ID is changed, not whether references to the old ID are updated, whether the new ID must be unique, or whether the change can be reversed. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 core action stated first and parameters listed clearly. The bilingual translation is redundant but not harmful. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool that changes a node identifier in what appears to be a structural model, the description omits critical context: potential impact on connected elements, uniqueness conflicts, scope of ID rules, and error behavior. With no output schema and sparse annotations, this is insufficient for confident 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 compensate. It does add meaning by labeling node_id as the existing ID and new_id as the replacement ID, which is helpful. However, it does not explain validation rules, uniqueness requirements, or what happens if the node does not exist.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Change a node's ID', which clearly distinguishes it from nearby siblings like update_node (property changes) and renumber_nodes (bulk renumbering). It does not mention constraints like uniqueness, but the core purpose is immediately clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as renumber_nodes or update_node. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended scope, or cases where a different tool should be preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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