Entities: update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds real value beyond them: partial-update semantics (omitted settings retain current values), the security consequence of making an entity public (anyone can query without signing in), and a warning to confirm with the user. This is rich context layered on top of the safety hints.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then adds only sentences that carry unique information: partial-update behavior, the sibling alternative, the security implication, and the caution. No filler or redundancy with the structured fields.

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 output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it responsibly: partial-update semantics, hard limits, security impact, and a user-confirmation nudge, all consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the terse schema labels: it explains that leaving a setting out preserves its current value and clarifies the real-world effect of the public flag. This goes past restating the schema without fully documenting every parameter's syntax.

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 (update) and resource (entity settings) and enumerates exactly which settings change (public, RLS, lock-new-records). It explicitly distinguishes itself from fields_update for column changes, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives clear when-to-use context, names the alternative (fields_update) for the case this tool cannot handle, and states the exclusion explicitly (cannot rename or change fields). It also adds a pre-run caution to check with the user.

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