remnanode_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the rolling batch-1 default, the per-node pull/up sequence, the wait for container plus panel connection, and the fail-stop behavior. It omits auth/permission needs and the time cost of a full rollout, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core action and mechanism front-loaded and the rollout/failure semantics following. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the dry-run/apply gate, and failure handling adequately, and the schema covers the return-adjacent planHash. It stops short of noting duration, auth prerequisites, or blast radius (e.g. prune removing dangling images).

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including defaults and planHash semantics. The description reinforces the batch-1 default and the pull/up behavior but adds little on parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Update) and resource (remnanode / remnawave node image on nodes), then spells out the exact mechanism: compare against Docker Hub, then per-node `docker compose pull && up -d`. An agent can identify this distinctly among the fleet siblings without opening the schema.

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 implies usage through the dry-run/apply workflow and the 'stops at the first node' rollout semantics, and the apply param clarifies the plan step. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. apt_upgrade or service_action) or when not to use it, leaving routing to inference.

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