update_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: partial fields update, and that Image/ram/qemu_* changes apply on restart rather than live. It also references add_node for field semantics. Missing details like authentication requirements or error handling, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: action, use cases, and timing. No superfluous words.

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 tool has 20 parameters and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct use: partial updates, use cases, timing, and a reference to add_node for field details. It does not detail return values, but an output schema is present (per context signals), so that's not necessary. The only gap is lack of explicit error scenarios or prerequisites, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use safely.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by stating 'Accepts the same field names as add_node,' linking to a sibling tool's schema for meaning. The partial-update sentence clarifies optionality, and the schema's default null values reinforce that. This reference adds value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't exhaustively document each field.

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: 'Edit an existing node's fields' and specifies the key behavior of partial updates ('Only the fields you pass are changed'). It distinguishes this from adding or deleting nodes, making the purpose specific and 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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'fix a node that crashes on boot' and 'tweak ram/qemu_nic without deleting and recreating,' which also suggests the alternative of delete+create. The timing note ('take effect on the next restart, not on a running node') helps when to use it.

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