sap_update_entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing entity' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, error handling, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a tool that modifies data.

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 extremely concise with just three words ('Update an existing entity'), making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose without any waste.

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?

Given the complexity of updating SAP OData entities (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, what constitutes a valid update, or how to interpret results, making it incomplete for safe and effective use in this context.

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%, with all parameters clearly documented in the input schema (serviceName, entitySet, keyValues, data). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 'Update an existing entity' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('entity'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what kind of entity (SAP OData entity) or distinguish it from sibling tools like sap_create_entity or sap_delete_entity, leaving the scope vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an active SAP connection), differentiate from sap_create_entity (for new entities) or sap_delete_entity (for removal), or specify use cases for updating versus other operations.

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