node_update

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only. Description adds that only 'title' is documented as updatable and body is flat, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Delivers key details (HTTP method, endpoint, constraints, alternatives) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple field update tool, description covers what it updates, how to structure the body, and alternatives. No output schema exists, but a brief note on return value (e.g., updated node) could improve completeness. Still adequate.

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 covers 3 parameters with descriptions for node_id and title (67%). Description adds that title is the only updatable field and body is flat, clarifying usage. The 'site' parameter lacks schema description but context implies it's the site identifier.

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 'Update a node's title' with HTTP method and endpoint, clearly identifying the specific resource (node) and action (update title). Differentiates from sibling tools node_move and node_relocate by specifying they are for tree restructuring.

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?

Explicitly points to node_move and node_relocate for tree restructuring, and mentions body is flat (no envelope wrapper). Does not explicitly state when NOT to use, but provides enough context for proper selection.

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