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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates data. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations: it does not say whether omitted fields are cleared, whether aliases replace or append, or what the destructive behavior actually consists of — for a tool flagged destructive, that silence is a real gap.

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 short sentence with the key scoping element ('por ID') stated up front. Efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

A six-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and half its parameters undocumented in the schema needs the description to carry weight, and it does not. An agent cannot learn from it what the update returns, how partial updates behave, or how it differs from upsert_entity.

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 only 50%; aliases, context, and description have no schema documentation. The description says only 'campos' generically and adds no meaning about whether aliases append or replace, or how workspace_id scoping affects the update, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 ('Actualiza campos de una entidad existente por ID'), so the basic operation is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like upsert_entity (which also creates-or-updates an entity by ID) or merge_entities, leaving the agent to infer which to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus upsert_entity or merge_entities, and no prerequisites or constraints stated. The only implicit cue is 'existente', which hints the entity must already exist but does not say what happens if it doesn't.

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