entity_update

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so safety is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond field categories: it does not say whether unspecified fields are left untouched, whether changes are undoable via model_undo, or what happens if entity_id/path disagree.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential targeting information, so it is under-specified rather than optimally 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?

For a mutating 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It leaves unclear how the target entity is selected and what subset of attributes a single call can change, which an agent needs before invoking it.

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% across 7 parameters with 0 required, so the description carries the full burden. It loosely names name, tag, 'visibility' and 'lock state' (presumably hidden and locked) but never mentions entity_id, path, or model_id, and gives no format or default semantics for any of them.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource (set entity attributes) and lists four attribute categories, which is more than a tautology. But it omits how the target entity is identified and ignores three schema parameters (entity_id, path, model_id), so an agent cannot tell the full scope from the description alone. Sibling tools like entity_transform and entity_set_material are not referenced to disambiguate.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no routing to alternatives such as entity_transform for transforms or entity_set_material for materials. The agent must infer everything about context of use.

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