entity_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful non-obvious trait: validation failure triggers a rollback, implying atomicity. However, it does not explain what is destroyed or overwritten, whether permissions are required, or what happens on successful validation.

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 one tight sentence with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the rollback condition is integrated compactly. It is under-specified overall, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structure or conciseness problem.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, this is a mutating tool with no annotations, five parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and no usage context. The 13-word description is not enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without guessing at path semantics, validation behavior, or the role of the optional declaration_path.

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 mentions none of the five parameters (content, entity_name, entity_path, repository_path, declaration_path). Since the schema provides only names and types, and the description adds no semantic meaning, an agent cannot infer how to correctly fill these parameters.

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 ('Replace'), a resource ('local entity'), and a distinctive behavioral condition ('roll back when validation fails'). This clearly differentiates entity_update from siblings like entity_create, entity_delete, and entity_read without needing to open the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as entity_create or entity_delete, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of updating an existing entity is only implied by the name and 'replace' wording.

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