Update node config

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by explicitly labeling it 'HIGH RISK' and requiring user confirmation. This goes beyond the annotations by providing a behavioral instruction. It does not detail what specific destructive actions occur, but the warning is sufficient.

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 extraneous content. The first sentence states the purpose with examples, the second sentence delivers a critical warning. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief. It covers high-level purpose and safety, but lacks detail on return values, parameter effects for unmentioned parameters, and lifecycle implications. The warning is crucial but completeness is only adequate.

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 description lists three of the six parameters (description, ACPI, wake-on-lan) by example, providing some meaning beyond the schema which has only 17% coverage (confirm parameter has description). The remaining parameters (node, confirm, startall_onboot_delay) are not explained. The description partially compensates for low schema coverage but not fully.

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 it updates node configuration including description, ACPI, and wake-on-lan settings. The verb 'update' and resource 'node config' are specific. However, it does not fully differentiate from other node update tools like update_node_network or update_node_subscription, and the 'etc.' leaves some ambiguity.

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 a critical usage guideline: 'HIGH RISK — ask the user to confirm before invoking.' This tells the agent to obtain user approval. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus competing node update tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for safe usage.

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