update_dependency_view_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default return behavior (summary plus changed ids) and the verbose flag for full data, adding value beyond the schema. However, it omits side effects, permissions, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second sentence adds useful return behavior without redundancy, earning 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?

The description gives a solid high-level summary but is incomplete given the complexity: no output schema, no annotations, and 8 parameters. It omits parameter constraints, differences from batch tools, and any edge-case behavior. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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% and the description only hints at 'layout' (x, y) and 'note', leaving parameters like collapsed and verbose insufficiently explained. It does not clarify which update fields are required or optional, or how they interact. Minimal added value beyond property names.

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 tool updates a task node's layout or note within a dependency planning view, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_task (generic task update) and update_dependency_view (view-level update).

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 usage for single-node updates in dependency views but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as batch_update_dependency_view_nodes for multiple nodes. No clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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