graph_update_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: automatic re-indexing of Qdrant vector when data.text changes. This adds value beyond the schema, though it does not describe other potential side effects or permissions.

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?

Three concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, behavioral note, and usage guideline. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and 15 sibling tools, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, and alternatives. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but this is acceptable since no output schema exists and the return is likely the updated node.

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 50% (one of two parameters described). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. The missing 'node_id' description is not compensated, but the 'data' parameter is well-described in 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'node', specifying 'in-place' and labeling it as 'Strategy A: Update'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'graph_supersede' by mentioning an alternative for major changes.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use for small corrections and improvements' and directly names the alternative tool 'graph_supersede' for different use cases, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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