nodes.update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing data not mentioned in the update, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence ('Update a node's data/configuration.'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in this minimal formulation.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or side effects. With 2 parameters and a nested object in the schema, more context about the update operation's semantics would be helpful for proper tool invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('nodeId' and 'data'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'data' should contain or how the merge operation works. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a node's data/configuration' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('node'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'data/configuration' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodes.add', 'nodes.get', or 'nodes.updateFlowchart', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific update operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'nodes.add', 'nodes.get', 'nodes.updateFlowchart', and 'layout.update', there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about the right tool selection.

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