change_node_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what is preserved, what happens to dropped/reset parameters, that unversioned names map to the preferred version, and that keep_network_contents=False resets an asset to its definition's contents even if already of the new type. It does not mention failure modes, permissions, or return behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 well-structured: a compact behavioral summary, contextual examples, and a clear Args list. The prose is detailed but every sentence contributes meaningful information, so it earns its length without being bloated.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics well: what the tool does, when to use it, and the behavior of key flags. Missing return-value or error-condition details are minor for this kind of in-place mutation tool.

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%, so the Args section must compensate. It documents all five parameters, with useful additions for new_type ('in the node's own category'), keep_parms ('by name'), and keep_network_contents ('False resets an asset to its definition's contents'). However, node_path and keep_name are essentially restatements of their names and add minimal semantic value.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and behavior: 'Change a node's type in place' while preserving wires, name, position, flags, parameter values, and network contents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like create_node, delete_node, rename_node, and copy_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 gives concrete use cases: moving an HDA instance to a newer installed version and swapping a placeholder for a real node. It also references create_node for version-name behavior, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with a direct alternative.

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