n8n_update_credential

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update existing credential' without explaining side effects, partial vs. full update behavior, required permissions, or reversibility. This is nearly tautological and adds no context beyond the tool name.

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 a single, concise sentence but is under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name without providing any valuable context, failing to 'earn its place' with useful information.

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 an update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention update semantics (e.g., whether it merges or replaces), auth requirements, or return value, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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% with each parameter having a description. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already documents data, name, and credential_id adequately, so the baseline of 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?

The description 'Actualizar una credencial existente' clearly states the action (update) and resource (credential), distinguishing it from create, delete, and list operations. It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it lacks detail on what aspects can be updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_credential or delete_credential. There are no mentions of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios that favor this tool.

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