node_update

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether this is a partial patch (only the three named fields) or a full replace, what happens to omitted fields, what auth is required, or whether changes are reversible. Only the bare word "update" signals mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated, but it is also under-specified and slightly ungrammatical ("an existing node properties"). Brevity here reflects missing content rather than discipline.

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 should at minimum explain update semantics (partial vs. full), required permissions, and how it relates to node_update_config. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer the whole behavior contract from the schema.

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 100% and each of the three parameters (slug, node_id, description) has its own inline description, so the schema does the work. The tool description adds nothing beyond it, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

"Update an existing node properties" names a verb and a resource, but stops there: it never says which properties are mutable or how this differs from the very similar sibling node_update_config. An agent can infer it is a mutation on a node, but nothing more specific.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than node_update_config, node_create_action, or the other node_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must open the schema and guess from the parameter names.

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