Update Node

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention merge/replace semantics, error behavior when the id does not exist, or reversibility, merely restating that it updates properties.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the action with no filler. It is efficient and appropriately sized, though slightly terse.

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 schema and annotations provide a solid foundation, but the description lacks details about return values, behavior when the node does not exist, and whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset. Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap, making the description minimally viable rather than 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?

All six parameters are fully described in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate. The description only says 'update properties' and adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing node in the workflow graph'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_node and remove_node. It also implies property-level changes, matching the tool's name and title.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_update or add_node. The phrase 'existing node' implies it is not for creation, but there are no explicit usage contexts, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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