nodesUpdateFabricNode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 14 parameters and nested objects.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, consisting of two sentences without unnecessary elaboration. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant given the schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (14 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on update behavior, error cases, or what constitutes a valid update, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 14 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'resource ID' and 'fields to update' are needed, which is already clear from the schema's required parameters and properties. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the verb 'Update' and resource 'a specific node', which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of a node can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodesUpdateManagementPort' or 'nodesUpdateNodeLoopback', making it vague in context.

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, such as other update tools in the sibling list. It mentions passing resource ID and fields as arguments, but this is procedural rather than contextual usage advice, leaving the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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