update_hda

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Save' but does not mention side effects such as overwriting the HDA definition, affecting other instances of the asset, requiring an unlocked or writable HDA, or whether the change can be reverted. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 very short and front-loaded: the main action appears in the first sentence with no filler. The only minor waste is the 'ctx: MCP context.' line, which is redundant and not a schema parameter, but the overall structure is clean.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more operational context. It omits when to use this tool versus HDA siblings, what side effects occur, and any constraints on the node or HDA definition. An agent could invoke it, but without knowing consequences or prerequisites it is not sufficiently complete.

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 description needed to compensate. It only restates 'node_path: Node path', which adds little beyond the schema's existing title 'Node Path'. It does not clarify what the node path must point to, whether it must be an HDA instance, or any format requirements. The listed 'ctx' argument is also not part of the input 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save the current node contents back to its HDA definition.' This clearly communicates the core action. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_hda, reload_hda, and uninstall_hda by its meaning, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related HDA operations such as create_hda, install_hda, reload_hda, or get_hda_info. The description only states what the tool does, with no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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