Atualizar entidade

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key non-obvious behavior of a 'merge raso' (shallow merge), which tells the agent that omitted existing fields are preserved. However, it says nothing about failure behavior when the entity is missing, side effects, or the return value, leaving notable gaps for a mutation without annotation coverage.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the valuable 'merge raso' behavioral note is tucked into a parenthetical rather than cluttering the main clause. Every word contributes, so it is appropriately concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left without information about the return value or error semantics, though the core operation is captured. For a two-parameter update utility the description is adequate but incomplete around edge cases, making it a minimum-viable definition.

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?

The schema describes the patch parameter as 'campos a sobrescrever; id é ignorado', which covers half of the parameters, but the id parameter has no schema description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the operation, so it does not compensate for the id gap; nevertheless, both parameters' roles are reasonably inferable from the operation semantics.

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 opens with the verb 'Atualiza' (updates) and specifies the resource as 'campos de uma entidade já registrada' (fields of an already registered entity), clearly distinguishing the operation from sibling tools like register_entity, get_entity, and remove_entity. The parenthetical 'merge raso' adds a precise scoping detail that further identifies what the tool does.

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 phrase 'já registrada' implies the entity must already exist, so an agent can infer this is not for creation, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer update_entity over register_entity or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, leaving the usage context implicit.

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