Catalog Update Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Writable' hints at a constraint, but the description does not explain what makes an entity writable, what effects an update has, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the record does not exist, or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action. It is concise, though the jargon 'writable first-class' is not earning its place because it is unexplained.

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?

The tool has three required parameters, zero annotation support, and zero schema descriptions, yet the description provides no invocation context, no parameter meaning, no edge-case behavior, and no relationship to sibling tools. This is far from complete enough for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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%, and the description does not compensate. entity, obj_id, and data are all required but entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess that obj_id identifies a record and data carries the new values. For a three-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is severely inadequate.

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 states a clear verb ('update') and resource ('a record in a writable first-class catalog entity'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'writable first-class catalog entity' is unexplained domain jargon and does not distinguish this from generic entity_update_tool or catalog_create_tool. The core purpose is understandable but 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus catalog_create_tool, entity_update_tool, or the many other update tools. No context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided, though nothing actively misleads the agent.

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