maltego_update_entity

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive, but the description adds critical detail: 'properties are merged (not replaced)' and only supplied fields change. This informs the agent of exact mutation behavior, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences and a bullet list, immediately stating purpose, then key behavioral note, then parameter details. No redundant content; 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?

For a mutating update tool with idempotent hint, the description covers what changes (specific fields), how they change (merge, partial), and return type (confirmation/error). This is sufficient for an agent to understand side effects and usage context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description lists all parameters with clear roles: entity_id (required), value (optional new primary), properties (merged), notes (replacement), weight (0-100). It adds the merge behavior and weight range, compensating for schema gaps.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an entity's value, properties, notes, or weight on the active graph.' This identifies the specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like add, delete, or get by focusing on modification of an existing entity's attributes.

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 emphasizes that 'Only the supplied fields change; properties are merged (not replaced),' which guides usage for partial updates. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like add_entity or delete_entity, leaving context clear but not fully comprehensive.

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