change_node_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that unversioned names map to the preferred version (as create_node does) and that values not carried over are reported in parms_dropped/parms_reset. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or confirming reversibility, so a full 5 is not warranted.

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?

Behavior and rationale are front-loaded before the Args list, and the structure is scannable. The prose paragraph is slightly verbose and partially restates the parameter list, but every sentence conveys real meaning without filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely self-sufficient, even hinting at return fields (parms_dropped/parms_reset). It could be more complete by addressing failure/error conditions or permission needs, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: it documents node_path, new_type (clarifying it is in the node's own category and how unversioned names resolve), keep_name, keep_parms, and keep_network_contents, including the non-obvious behavior that keep_network_contents=False resets an asset to its definition's contents even when already of new_type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a node's type in place') and immediately enumerates what is preserved (wires, name, position, flags, parameter values, network contents). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_node, delete_node, and copy_node, which do not mutate an existing node's type.

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?

Provides concrete when-to-use scenarios: moving an HDA instance to an installed newer version without losing edits, and swapping a placeholder for the real node. It does not name explicit alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the use contexts are clear enough for correct selection.

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