kg_update_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that updates are partial ('only specified fields are changed'), which is valuable behavioral context. Yet it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, return values, or failure modes—important gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and supported fields. Every word serves a purpose, and the partial-update clarification earns its place. This is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description plus the fully described schema is largely complete. It states what the tool does, what can be changed, and the partial-update behavior. A mention of response/error behavior or permissions would make it fully complete.

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 input schema already describes all 8 parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds only the general partial-update note, not field-specific meaning, so it neither improves nor harms the parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Updates an existing knowledge node,' clearly identifying the specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the editable fields (content, tags, importance, visibility) and notes partial-update support, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kg_capture or kg_node.

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 states 'Use to modify content, tags, importance, or visibility of a node,' giving a clear condition for use. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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