update_node

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important behavioral trait that this is a partial mutation (only passed fields change), but says nothing about what happens on invalid nodeId, whether changes are undoable, permission requirements, or what the call returns. The operationId caching/retry semantics exist only in the schema, not 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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the scope, the second delivers the operative constraint. No filler, no restating the tool name, and the field enumeration is compact rather than exhaustive prose.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what can be changed and the partial-update rule, but leaves the response shape, failure behavior, and sibling routing (vs move_node/write_node) unaddressed. Adequate to call it, not fully complete for an agent reasoning about side effects.

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 only 47%, but the description compensates well by grouping the modifiable fields and flagging that text and typography apply only to TEXT nodes and that Auto Layout covers both container and child behavior. It does not explain nested layout units or the retry/caching role of operationId, which remain schema-only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Меняет свойства существующей ноды") and enumerates the property groups it touches: name, position, size, fills/strokes/cornerRadius/effects, visibility, opacity, text/typography and Auto Layout. This clearly distinguishes it from create/clone/delete siblings, though it never explicitly names move_node or write_node as alternatives for overlapping operations.

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?

"Передавай только те поля, которые нужно изменить" gives a real usage rule (partial-update semantics) plus the TEXT-only constraint for text/typography. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over move_node or write_node, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. the node must exist, plugin/file must be active).

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