update_entity_metadataSet relationship/index metadata on an entity schema. This stores metadata in the schema file; DB index creation is automatic where supported by the platform.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| entity | Yes | Entity name | |
| indexes | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| relationships | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that metadata is stored in the schema file and that DB index creation is automatic where supported. This clarifies side-effects without contradicting the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the added detail justifies a high score.
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-loads the purpose, and contains zero fluff. Every sentence contributes value, and the key side-effect is stated efficiently.
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 5 parameters, nested objects (indexes, metadata, relationships), no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how to structure the nested objects, whether existing metadata is replaced or merged, or how the automatic DB index creation interacts with existing indexes. An agent would need to guess at most of the input structure.
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?
With only 40% schema description coverage (only app_id and entity are described), the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters (indexes, metadata, relationships). It names them as 'relationship/index metadata' but does not explain their structure, required fields, or how they interact. The coverage gap is significant and the description provides insufficient guidance.
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 specific action ('Set relationship/index metadata') and the resource ('entity schema'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_entity_schema by focusing on metadata-only. It also explains a key side-effect (DB index creation) that separates it from general schema edits.
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 gives context about what it does (stores metadata in schema) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like update_entity_schema or create_entity_schema. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.