turingmind_update_spec_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that updating a contract triggers automatic subgraph invalidation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention if metadata updates have similar effects, nor does it cover auth, rate limits, or idempotency.

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 sentences, front-loading the action and effect, then providing usage guidance. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively sparse. It explains the key behavioral effect (subgraph invalidation) but omits return values, prerequisites (e.g., node must exist), and details on metadata updates.

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 88%, so most parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning that 'contract' is a strict mathematical contract. This meets the baseline but does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 an existing SpecNode's contract or metadata, distinguishing it from creation tools like turingmind_create_spec_node. It uses a specific verb and resource, and adds context about triggering subgraph invalidation.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'when refining specs based on new information or audit results,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare alternatives like promotion.

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