Update ICC Plus entity

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

The description goes beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing that updates are deep merges, that fields can be unset, and that ID changes may rewrite all modeled references—a meaningful side-effect warning. It does not use destructiveHint despite potential reference rewrites, but this is not necessarily a contradiction because the operation updates rather than deletes. It could add dry-run or validation behavior, but the annotation set is minimal.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the main action and then a critical side effect. Every sentence earns its place.

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 nine parameters, nested values, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the short description leaves important context unexplained: return values, failure or validation behavior, and when to use this versus iccplus_patch. It also does not mention dry_run or validation_policy, which are significant for safely exercising this mutation.

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?

It adds semantics for 'values' (deep-merged rather than replaced), 'unset' (explicit field removal), and ID/reference rewriting, which are not obvious from the bare schema. However, schema coverage is only 11%, and several parameters such as dry_run, expected_revision, validation_policy, and type receive no explanatory benefit from 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?

The description names a specific operation—deep-merging fields into an entity and optionally unsetting fields—and adds a notable side effect about ID changes rewriting modeled references. It clearly identifies 'one entity' as the resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling iccplus_patch.

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 explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as iccplus_patch or iccplus_create_entity. The 'update' title and merge semantics imply it is for modifying an existing entity, but the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria.

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