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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that field definitions are untouched, but omits whether omitted parameters are preserved (partial vs full update) and what the response contains.

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 lean sentences with no waste; the scope boundary is placed immediately after the purpose statement so an agent reads the constraint before deciding to call.

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?

Adequate for a five-parameter mutation with annotations covering idempotency and safety, but it leaves the plural_label parameter undocumented and says nothing about partial-update behavior or the return value, which matters with no output schema present.

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 coverage is only 20% (only entity_id documented), so the description must compensate. It names three of the five parameters (label, description, methods) but gives no format or value semantics for them, and plural_label is never mentioned in either the schema or the description.

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 metadata) and enumerates the mutable fields, so the scope is unambiguous. It also draws a boundary against field-related mutation, distinguishing it from update_field and update_entity's field cousins, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 scope statement ('Does not affect field definitions') implies when this tool is the wrong choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tools (update_field) for changing field definitions.

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