Update a node

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavioral implications: type changes reclassify roles, parent changes recompute ltree paths, restrictions on past-season nodes, and the effect of transplanting mode. This is far beyond the simple 'update' implied by the title.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: patch semantics, restrictions, exceptions, validation behavior, and a reference for transplant rules. It front-loads the purpose and patchable fields before diving into edge cases.

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 description thoroughly covers operation, constraints, exceptional modes, and validation for a complex update tool with no annotations or output schema. It does not describe the return value, but this is not critical given the detailed behavior and no output schema requirement.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the effects of changing specific fields (type, parent, season, sproutedAt) and highlights metadata.implements as a use case, going beyond raw schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Partial update of a node' and enumerates the exact patchable fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like create_node and delete_node by focusing on modification of an existing node.

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 by defining what can be patched and provides detailed conditions (grown-node restrictions, transplanting mode, past-season rejection). It references create_node for validation parity, but does not explicitly contrast with other update tools or state when not to use it.

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