edit_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the mutation nature ('Edit') and a critical permission constraint ('Only the creating agent can edit'), which are essential behavioral traits. However, it doesn't address other potential behaviors like whether edits are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place - the first sentence defines the tool's function, and the second adds a critical behavioral constraint without unnecessary elaboration.

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 provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and a key permission constraint. However, it lacks details about what the tool returns, error handling, or more nuanced behavioral aspects that would be helpful for an AI agent to use it correctly in various scenarios.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it mentions 'title, body, or tags' but the schema already describes these). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 the action ('Edit'), the resource ('existing knowledge node'), and specifies the editable attributes ('title, body, or tags'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_node (creation) and delete_node (deletion) by focusing on modification of existing content.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Edit an existing knowledge node') and includes an important usage constraint ('Only the creating agent can edit'), which helps differentiate it from tools like flag_node or vote_node that might be available to other users. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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