update_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid node_id), or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and directly lists the updatable properties, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (mutation with 6 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, full parameter semantics, and output expectations. For a tool that modifies graph nodes, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand proper invocation.

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 must compensate. It lists the updatable properties (label, phase, tool, properties), which maps to 4 of the 6 parameters, but doesn't explain the semantics of 'graph_id' and 'node_id' (required identifiers) or provide details on data formats, constraints, or the 'properties' object structure. The description adds some value but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

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 action ('Update') and target resource ('node properties'), and specifies the properties that can be updated (label, phase, tool, properties). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_node' or 'remove_node', but the verb 'Update' implies modification rather than retrieval or deletion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing node), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'add_node' for creation or 'remove_node' for deletion. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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