Edit node field

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

The description clearly discloses mutation semantics: add appends, rm removes by 1-based index, clear empties the field. It also reveals that 'Success is silent', which is important given there is no output schema. None of this contradicts the annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden well.

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 no filler. Every sentence adds operational or routing information, and the operation semantics are packed efficiently into one sentence.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers field scope, operations, value semantics, silent success, and key alternatives. It could more explicitly state that add/rm require value while clear does not, but this is inferable and the overall guidance is strong.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what value means for each operation: entry text for add, 1-based index for rm, and no value for clear. This materially helps an agent use the parameters correctly.

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 ('Edit') on a specific resource ('one list-valued field of a node') and lists representative fields and the supported operations. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools set and evidence, so an agent can identify exactly what this tool does.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for list-valued fields and provides clear routing guidance: 'For scalar attributes use set; for done-work proof on a work item prefer evidence.' This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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