modify_node

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

Annotations cover idempotency and the non-destructive profile, lowering the bar, and the description adds real behavioral context: it discloses that the tool checks for expressions referencing the node and can auto-fix them. It doesn't clarify failure modes or what happens when expression updates are declined, keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining text is compact. The Args block duplicates the schema descriptions, which is mildly redundant but keeps the definition readable.

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 rename mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (expression checking/updating) and the parameters. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though return behavior and edge-case handling are left implicit.

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 already documents all three parameters, and the description's Args block essentially restates those same descriptions verbatim. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a node') that clearly distinguishes it from create_node and delete_node in the sibling list. The description is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 guidance or mention of alternatives like create_node, delete_node, or set_expression. The purpose implies the use case, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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