update_registry_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the mutation surface (rename via `new_entity_id`, disable/hide booleans) which is genuinely useful behavioral information, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or side effects on referencing entities.

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, front-loaded with the verb+resource and then the key list; no filler. The backtick-heavy key list is compact, though `entity_id` is never addressed.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a fully opaque nested-object schema, the description covers the allowed change keys but leaves the required `entity_id` meaning, failure modes, and effect on dependents unspecified.

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 coverage is 0% and `changes` is an opaque object with additionalProperties:true and no documented keys. The description enumerates the accepted keys and their types (`disabled_by`, `hidden_by` as bool; `new_entity_id` as rename), which is meaningful compensation the schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb ('Mutate') and resource ('registry entity'), and the mapping of key names like `new_entity_id` (rename) clarifies scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_registry_entity, delete_registry_entity, and list_registry_entities, though it never says what a 'registry entity' actually is.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite ~50 sibling tools including delete_registry_entity and get_registry_entity. The agent must infer that this is the write counterpart to the read/delete siblings.

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