modify_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that this is a mutation on an existing node, saying nothing about required permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved (partial vs full update), whether rename affects downstream references, or the coordinate space for position. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the mutation semantics are a real 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the mutation categories are listed compactly. It is well-sized, though the terseness is partly what leaves the behavioral and parameter gaps unfilled.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, nested-object parameters, and heavy sibling overlap, the description is too thin. It omits update semantics, parameter formats, and disambiguation from set_parameter/set_node_flags, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values.

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 coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to three parameters (name, position, parameters) but adds essentially nothing beyond the self-evident parameter names, gives no format for the position array or the parameters object, and never mentions the required 'path' parameter.

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 gives a specific verb (modify) and resource (node) plus the three mutation categories: rename, reposition, change parameters. This is clear and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like set_parameter, set_parameters, or set_node_flags, which also mutate node state, so an agent cannot tell which tool to prefer.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given that siblings set_parameter/set_parameters exist specifically for changing parameter values and the description lists 'change parameters' as a capability here, the overlap is left unresolved and the agent must guess.

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