update_node_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the name by describing the confirmation-plus-audit response and the automatic rollback on XML parse failure. It does not cover permissions or side effects on child nodes, so it stops 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 description is compact, well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information, though 'etc.' is slightly vague and the Args list partially duplicates schema property names.

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?

The description covers all parameters, the response format, and rollback behavior, which is good for a mutation tool. However, it leaves important ambiguity around optional null values (whether null means 'do not update' or 'clear the property') and does not specify tags format or icon ID constraints. For a 7-parameter mutation with no annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 parameter list in the description is essential. It gives meaningful labels to all seven arguments, including useful specifics like 'foreground: Title color hex' and 'readonly: Read-only flag'. Some entries such as 'tags: New tags' remain terse, but the description largely compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies the operation as updating node properties and lists representative fields (name, tags, icon). It distinguishes from the sibling update_node_content by focusing on metadata/properties rather than content, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus update_node_content or other siblings. The description implies use for property changes, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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