workflowy_update_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens when only some fields are provided (partial updates), or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure itself is efficient with every word serving a purpose.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may document return values, the description fails to provide essential context about what can be updated, how updates work, when to use this versus sibling tools, or behavioral implications. For a tool with this complexity, the description should do significantly more.

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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides zero information about what the parameters mean, their purposes, or how they interact. It doesn't even mention that parameters exist beyond node_id, leaving the agent to guess what can be updated based on parameter names alone.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and target ('an existing WorkFlowy node'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'workflowy_complete_node' or 'workflowy_uncomplete_node' which also modify nodes, nor does it mention what aspects can be updated (name, note, layout_mode, completion status).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'workflowy_complete_node' for marking completion, or 'workflowy_move_node' for structural changes, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing node_id. There's no explicit when/when-not context provided.

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