Update node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility, and it succeeds: it labels the call Destructive, discloses read-merge-write semantics vs full-replace PUT, and warns that evictionRequested:true drains replicas/backing images. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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?

Action, examples, merge behavior, dangerous side effect, and safety warning are front-loaded in a compact sequence. No filler; each sentence adds necessary operational 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?

For a destructive 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this is nearly complete: safety, side effects, merge semantics, and docs link are present. It still omits expected return value and any conditions like node existence or permissions, so it is not fully 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?

Schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It identifies three relevant fields and explains evictionRequested's serious side effect, but does not define allowScheduling or tags, and name is only implied. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a clear verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('Longhorn node record'), with examples of targeted fields (allowScheduling, evictionRequested, tags). It clearly separates from list/get siblings but does not explicitly contrast with node_disk_update, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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?

Gives strong context for when the tool is appropriate by requiring explicit user authorization and prohibiting proactive/speculative calls. Does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., node_get for reads, node_disk_update for disk settings), so alternative routing is left implicit.

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