Update Node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a merge or full-replace update, what happens to fields not supplied, permission requirements, or validation failure behavior. Output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the mutation semantics remain unstated.

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 short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 a free-form nested object parameter and zero annotation coverage, the description is too thin. It omits field format expectations, partial-update behavior, and permissions, leaving the agent to guess at how to build a valid 'fields' payload.

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 both parameters are undocumented. The description adds only a loose gloss ('by ID' for nid, 'given fields' for fields), but the free-form object with additionalProperties is exactly the case where the description must explain acceptable keys — and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (node) scoped to a single record by ID, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling bulk_update_nodes. However, it never names an alternative explicitly, so distinguishing it from bulk_update_nodes or create_node relies on the reader inferring from 'single'.

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?

Provides no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as bulk_update_nodes for multiple records or create_node for new content. The agent gets no routing guidance beyond the verb itself.

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