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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, lowering the bar. The description adds only that the entity must already exist and is identified by ID; it does not describe what gets destroyed, partial-update behavior, or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is exactly as long as it needs to be for the minimal information it provides.

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 input schema is an open object with no defined properties, so the agent does not know which fields can be updated. Although annotations and an output schema exist, the description does not compensate for this significant input ambiguity, making it incomplete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents entityId and the input object. The description adds no meaning beyond 'by ID' and does not explain what fields the input object accepts, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (entity) and adds a scoping detail (by ID). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling update tools or mention the related get/create/list entity tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It implies an existing entity is required, but does not say when to choose this over glpi_create_entity, glpi_get_entity, or other update tools.

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