update_node_properties

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that it updates metadata and properties. It does not explain whether missing optional fields are overwritten or cleared, whether the update is idempotent, or what permissions are required. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 a single concise sentence with the core operation front-loaded. It contains no filler, though its brevity means it does little to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions and usage guidance.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, this definition is incomplete. An agent cannot infer partial-update behavior, the effect of empty-string defaults, or when to choose this tool over get_node_properties or delete_node. The output schema may clarify return values but not invocation behavior.

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 adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the phrase 'metadata and properties.' While names like node_id and title are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify relationships between parameters, default-value behavior, or how node_id acts as the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('metadata and properties of a document or folder'). This clearly signals a mutation operation and distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_node_properties and browse_repository. It is less explicit, however, in differentiating itself from other mutation tools beyond the 'metadata and properties' scope.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions such as needing an existing node, which matters given the 14 sibling tools that include get_node_properties and delete_node.

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