Update Journey Node

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds critical context: it is a full replacement (not a merge), does not modify journey structure, and requires fetching current state to preserve fields. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond what annotations provide.

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: the first states the purpose, the second provides the critical usage pattern. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given the complexity (nested config object, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral context: full replacement, no structural changes, and the fetch-merge pattern. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but annotations and schema fill most gaps. Mostly complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already states (e.g., config is a full replacement). The merge guidance is more about usage than parameter semantics.

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 'Update a single node's configuration without modifying the journey structure', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like updateJourney (full journey update) and deleteJourneyNodes (deletion), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises to first fetch current configuration using getJourney, merge changes, then call this tool with the complete configuration. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, referencing a specific alternative (getJourney) for partial updates.

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