Entity Update Tool

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely important trait beyond the verb: 'Only the fields provided in data are changed; other fields are left as-is,' which communicates partial-update/merge semantics rather than full overwrite. However, it does not cover error behavior (e.g., invalid entity name or field, nonexistent obj_id) or any permission/safety implications of a mutating operation.

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 no filler: the first identifies the action and target, the second adds the critical partial-update behavioral detail. The key differentiating trait is front-loaded and 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?

This is a generic, moderately complex CRUD tool, and the combination of a tight description, 100% parameter coverage in the schema, and an output schema covers most of what an agent needs. The partial-update disclosure compensates for the absent annotations on a mutating tool. The remaining gap is minor: no description of failure semantics when the entity or obj_id is invalid.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all three parameters well, including an example JSON payload for data and a pointer to entity_list_tool for obj_id. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing Grocy entity object by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from entity_create_tool and entity_delete_tool by operation type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many specialized sibling update tools (recipe_update_tool, catalog_update_tool, battery_update_tool, equipment_update_tool), leaving the generic-vs-specialized routing implicit.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized *_update_tool siblings or the entity_create/entity_delete tools. The only usage pointer ('use entity_list_tool to find IDs') lives in the schema's obj_id parameter, not the description, and it says nothing about when NOT to use this tool.

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