entity_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that updates 'Records transition history,' which is a useful behavioral trait beyond basic mutation. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 very concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, but it may be overly brief given the lack of other information. Every sentence adds value, though more detail would improve completeness.

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?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, usage context, or behavioral details. The output schema might cover return values, but the description should still address inputs and context more thoroughly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any meaning for the parameters (entity_id, new_state, reason). No details on what entity_id refers to, valid states for new_state, or the purpose of reason are provided. The description fails to address the undocumented 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 the tool 'Update entity state' which provides a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('entity state'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'entity state' means and doesn't differentiate from siblings like entity_create or entity_query. The additional detail 'Records transition history' adds some specificity but doesn't fully clarify the scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., entity must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like entity_create (for new entities) or entity_query (for reading state). The description implies usage for updating existing entities but lacks explicit context.

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