Update nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: changes occur in one undoable step, and only fields that are passed are modified. It does not detail permissions or validation behavior, but it provides clear mutation semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core action and atomic behavior, then compactly enumerates supported update categories. The final sentence 'Only the fields you pass change' adds a critical partial-update rule with no wasted words. Dense but well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 complex mutation tool with rich nested schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers purpose, atomicity, partial-update semantics, and the breadth of updatable fields. It need not explain return values since there is no output schema. The main omission is explicit array/ID semantics, which the schema provides, so completeness is strong but not perfect.

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?

The top-level 'updates' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage per context signals), so the description must compensate. It enumerates many updatable aspects and clarifies that only passed fields change, but it omits the array structure, required node id, maxItems limit, and fields such as x/y, accentColor, and headerHidden that are only documented in the nested schema. It partially compensates but leaves clear gaps.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Change existing nodes'. The enumeration of update categories (rename, text editing, move/resize, colours, glow, task state, etc.) and the atomic scope ('ONE undoable step') make the intended function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from create/delete by explicitly scoping to 'existing nodes'.

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 when to use the tool: changing existing nodes, especially in a single undoable step, with partial field updates. However, it gives no explicit routing guidance against siblings such as move_nodes or arrange_nodes, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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