update_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does disclose an authentication/permission requirement, which is useful. It does not explain partial-update semantics, side effects, or error behavior beyond that.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first defines the core purpose, the second adds the key prerequisite. The action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, this is too thin. An agent knows what the tool does but not how to populate attributes or relationships, what the response looks like, or what other behavioral constraints apply.

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%, and the description does not compensate. 'Campos' loosely maps to the attributes parameter, and 'content type' appears in the permission sentence, but uuid, the structure of attributes, and relationships are left entirely unexplained.

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 action ('Actualiza campos') and a specific resource ('nodo existente en el sitio Drupal'). The word 'existente' clearly distinguishes it from create_node, and the update semantics distinguish it from list_nodes/get_node.

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?

Implies usage when one needs to edit a Drupal node's fields and provides a prerequisite ('Requiere permiso de edición en ese content type'). It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as create_node or list_nodes.

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