Modify a mindmap node's label, status, semantic type, notes, or attached files to keep execution plans and architectural context current.
Update a node's label, status, semantic type, notes, or attached files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | New semantic type | |
| files | No | File touches to record on this node | |
| label | No | New label text | |
| notes | No | Updated notes or context | |
| nodeId | Yes | Node ID to update | |
| status | No | New status; tasks only | |
| mindmapId | Yes | Mindmap ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and doesn't meet it. It doesn't say whether this is a partial merge or a replace of unmentioned fields, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens when an optional field is omitted — all critical 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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and affected fields front-loaded, zero filler. It is efficient, though the compactness is partly the cause of the usage and behavioral gaps elsewhere.
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?
The rich schema covers parameters well and there is no output schema to explain, so the definition is minimally viable. But for an annotation-free mutation tool with a 7-parameter surface, it should at least cover merge-vs-replace behavior and the file-touch overlap with log_file_touch.
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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the task-only constraint on status and the nested file/change structure. The description merely recites the field names and adds no format or semantics beyond the structured fields, which is the baseline case.
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 ('a node') plus the exact fields it can change (label, status, semantic type, notes, files). It implicitly distinguishes from add_node/remove_node by being an update, but never names siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives, and the sibling list contains log_file_touch, which clearly overlaps with the 'files' parameter here — the definition gives no rule for choosing between them. Prerequisites (node must already exist) and exclusions (status only applies to task nodes) are not stated in prose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.