Update a MindSpark node

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description confirms a mutation but adds no extra details about side effects, idempotency, or failure behavior, which the annotations don't already cover.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the affected properties. It avoids redundancy and perfectly accompanies the schema without unnecessary verbosity.

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 sufficiently covers the core functionality for a typical update operation, and the schema provides required parameter details. It does not explain return values or error cases, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool make this acceptable.

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 descriptions cover 4 of 6 parameters (text, color, listType, task) with clear meanings, leaving mapId and nodeId unexplained. The description itself does not add further semantic value beyond what the schema provides, but it does align with the listed mutable fields.

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 action (change) and the resource (an existing node), explicitly listing the four modifiable attributes (text, color, list style, task status). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_node and delete_node by focusing on updating an existing 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?

The description implies usage for updating existing nodes but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over add_node or delete_node. It lacks direct guidance on selection criteria, though the operation type is evident from the verb 'change'.

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