update_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that newTags overwrites existing tags with auto-stripping of # and lowercasing, and confirms no effect on parent/child relationships. However, it omits side effects like cloud sync triggers or reversibility, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second gives usage context, third clarifies scope and notes alternatives.

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?

Covers key aspects: what it does, when to use, and behavioral details like tag handling. However, it lacks information about the return value (since no output schema), which is a minor gap for a tool that updates existing data.

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 descriptions for all three parameters are already detailed (100% coverage). The description adds context by linking parameters to use cases ('Edit the text or tags'), but does not significantly enhance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Edit the text or tags of an existing node', specifying the verb ('edit') and the resource ('node'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that it does not change parent/child relationships and directs to use add_idea + delete_node for restructuring.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when an idea has been refined, clarified, or its scope has changed.' Also provides alternative actions for cases where parent/child relationships need to change, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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