write_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses useful behavior: writes to array nodes fail, type coercion to number or string is automatic, and time-related nodes typically require a reset afterwards. It does not state whether an existing value is overwritten, what errors look like, or what is returned.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler, each carrying a distinct constraint. The purpose statement is pushed behind the get_guide prerequisite rather than front-loaded, which is a minor structural weakness.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the key failure mode, type coercion, and the required follow-up action. It leaves only overwrite semantics and error or return behavior unspecified.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them. It does add the constraint that only leaf nodes are writable and that the target must be a leaf child, which refines the meaning of “path” beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: “写入模型树节点值” (write a model-tree node value). It also states how type coercion works, so the agent understands what this does. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_node, add_node, or rename_node, but the verb “write” makes it distinguishable.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite (“如未先读操作指南，请先调用 get_guide”) and clear when-not guidance: writing a composite or array node will fail, so write leaf child nodes instead. It also says that after modifying time-type nodes, a reset is usually needed. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as add_node for creating nodes.

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