vizcom_update_prompt_node

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

Annotations already disclose the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds real context beyond that: 'best-effort stale-edit detection' explains the concurrency model behind expectedUpdatedAt, and 'visible' implies a precondition. It still omits what actually happens when a stale edit is detected (hard failure vs. overwrite) and what the call returns.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the exclusion clause is placed immediately after it where it matters most.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential shape: what is mutated, the optimistic-concurrency caveat, and that no generation occurs. The main residual gap is the failure mode of stale-edit detection, which is behaviorally important but secondary.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it partially does by mapping 'text' to prompt and 'stale-edit detection' to expectedUpdatedAt. However, the required workbenchId and nodeId get no explanation, and the accepted format of expectedUpdatedAt plus the 1-8000 character bound on prompt are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource: update the text of a visible custom prompt node. The phrase 'Does not generate' separates it from the render/generate siblings, though it never names the nearest alternative, vizcom_create_prompt_node, so the create-vs-update boundary must be inferred.

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 negative guidance ('Does not generate') usefully tells the agent this is not a rendering step, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this instead of vizcom_create_prompt_node or the render pipeline. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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