Change an entity

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the operational scope and player exclusion, but does not explain whether updates are partial, how omitted fields behave, what permissions are needed, or what happens for invalid entities.

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 action list followed by an exclusion, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the operations an agent needs to recognize the tool.

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?

For a 17-parameter mutation tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits required uuid usage, several optional parameters, interaction semantics between fields, and failure behavior, leaving material gaps for correct invocation.

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 18%, so the description must compensate. It maps several parameters to actions (rename, AI, glowing, gravity, invulnerability, health, fire, teleport, push, tags), but leaves silent, persistent, customNameVisible, format, world, uuid, and the semantics of negative fireTicks or health zero unexplained.

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 the resource (an entity) and enumerates concrete operations: rename, toggle AI/glowing/gravity/invulnerability, set health/fire, teleport, push, tag. It also explicitly excludes players, which distinguishes it from player-focused siblings such as set_player_property and teleport_player.

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 'Not for players' gives a clear when-not condition and implicitly routes player changes to the player tools. However, it does not name the alternative tools explicitly or describe when to use this versus spawn_entity/remove_entity beyond the player exclusion.

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