map_update_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions side effects like 'creates auto-connection' for parentServer, domains target, and serviceConns, and enumerates allowed protocol/record enums. It does not detail partial vs. full update semantics or error handling, but the 'changes' object implies partial updates. This is solid disclosure beyond the schema.

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 long, but it is well-organized with clear section headers and consistent formatting. Every sentence provides necessary information for the complex schema. It fronts the primary purpose in the first sentence, which aids quick comprehension. It is about as concise as possible given the breadth of node types.

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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is impressively thorough—covering node-type-specific fields, enums, and auto-connection side effects. It does not mention the return value or what happens on validation failure, but those are secondary for tool invocation. The main gap is a lack of explicit error/response behavior, which is often critical for update operations.

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?

The input schema only describes 'changes' as 'Fields to update,' with no structure. The tool description compensates fully by providing a complete field schema per node type, including nested objects, enums, and side-effect annotations. This is essential for the agent to invoke the tool correctly, making the description's parameter guidance highly valuable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update fields of an existing node by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like map_add_node, map_delete_node, and map_update_connection. The detailed per-type field schema further clarifies the scope.

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 makes it evident this tool is for modifying node fields, and the extensive field schema implies it is the go-to for updating node properties. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions—e.g., when to use map_update_connection instead for connection updates. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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