update_project_nodes

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the effect of omitting nodes (all nodes become inactive, autoSelectNode=true) and clarifies the tool's dual functionality (activating specific nodes vs. deactivating all). This goes beyond what annotations convey about safety and idempotency.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains the alternative behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The structure logically presents the main use case followed by the edge case.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (managing node activation states), the description covers the core behavior well. Annotations provide safety context (idempotent, non-destructive), and there's an output schema (though not shown), so return values don't need explanation. The description explains the key behavioral nuance (nodes parameter effect), making it reasonably complete for agent use, though it could benefit from more parameter details given the low schema coverage.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some semantic context: it explains the effect of providing nodes (activate them) versus omitting them (deactivate all, enable autoSelectNode). However, it doesn't detail the 'projectId' parameter or the format of 'nodes' (array of strings). Since schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update the active state of the given nodes to true.' This specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('nodes'), and the specific action ('active state to true'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_project_nodes' (which reads) and 'update_project' (which updates project metadata). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other node-related tools since none exist in the sibling list.

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 provides some usage context: 'If you don't provide any nodes, all the nodes become inactive and autoSelectNode is true.' This implies when to use the tool (to activate specific nodes or deactivate all nodes) and hints at the default behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (like 'read_project_nodes' for checking current status) or mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid projectId).

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