reels_edit_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful partial-update semantics with 'Omitted fields stay unchanged,' but it does not explain revision/concurrency handling, permissions, or what happens if the entity does not exist. The added context is real but limited.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. The core action and the partial-update behavior are stated immediately.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with five required parameters and a large nested patch object, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits revision semantics, required patch expectations, and any return-value context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only broadly maps patch contents to 'color, pose, movement or geometry.' It does not explain the required projectId, revision, shotId, or entityId parameters, nor does it document the many nested patch fields such as scale, rotation, animation, metalness, or normalize.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Patch one existing entity.' It also names the categories of fields that can be changed (color, pose, movement, geometry), which helps distinguish it from creation. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as reels_edit_shot, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the word 'entity.'

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 implies that the tool is for editing an already existing entity, not creating one, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the correct tool for entity edits rather than shot edits or creation.

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