update_node

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

The description discloses important behaviors: summary and category are fully replaced, add_aliases append, properties merge, and empty strings mean no change. However, it does not mention return values, side effects, or idempotency. With no annotations, the burden is higher.

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 structured as an Args list with a clear purpose first. It is reasonably concise, though the repeated '빈 문자열이면 변경 안 함' could be condensed without loss.

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 lack of annotations and schema coverage, the description covers all parameters and their behaviors adequately. However, it does not describe the output or any safety/authorization context, leaving some completeness gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: purpose, behavior with empty string, and examples for add_aliases and properties. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states '특정 노드의 속성을 수정합니다' (modifies properties of a specific node), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_node and merge_nodes by implying a single-node update, but could be more explicit about when to use update_node vs merge_nodes.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., merge_nodes). The description does not provide context for when not to use it or mention prerequisites.

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