update_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses atomic edits, lists editable properties, and notes rejection of node_type changes when children exist. This is good but could mention permissions 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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: listing editable properties, distinguishing from update_task, noting a behavioral constraint. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters with enums and nested objects. The description covers main editable properties and a key constraint, but lacks details on return values, plan_id auto-resolution, and metadata structure. Given complexity, it could be more complete.

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 very low (13%). The description adds meaning by listing the editable properties and noting a constraint on node_type, partially compensating. However, it does not detail format or constraints for each parameter beyond the schema enums.

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 explicitly states the tool edits node properties atomically, lists the specific properties, and distinguishes from update_task for status transitions. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly differentiates from 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for editing properties) and when not (status transitions belong on update_task). It names the alternative tool. However, it does not cover all potential sibling tools like delete_node or move_node.

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