Edit node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well on the important cases: partial-update semantics, key add/overwrite vs delete vs full-replace, rename cascading to connected edges, and that an empty style string clears the style. It omits error behavior for a nonexistent id and any permission/return context, but the operationally significant traits are disclosed.

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?

Five short clauses, each delivering a distinct operational fact with zero filler. The partial-update constraint is front-loaded immediately after the purpose, so the most important behavior is read first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and nested property object shapes are already in the schema. For an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the high-risk semantics well; the missing piece is failure behavior when id does not resolve.

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, and it covers the four subtle parameters (properties, setProperties, removeProperties, newId) with genuinely useful semantics about mutation mode. It says nothing about id, label, or position, leaving three of eight parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Edit a node") and immediately narrows scope with "Only the given fields change," which pins down patch semantics. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like add_node, remove_node, or edit_edge, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings, and no prerequisites stated. What it does provide is disambiguation between the three property parameters (setProperties vs removeProperties vs properties), which is useful selection guidance at the parameter level but not at the tool level.

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