Entities: update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not explain what gets modified, whether changes are reversible, required permissions, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, it still fails to add useful behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise, which would normally be positive, but for a destructive 4-parameter update tool the brevity leaves important specification gaps. It is front-loaded but under-specified rather than efficiently scoped.

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 destructive update tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context about what settings are updated, how the required name parameter is used, and any safety or permission implications. Annotations and schema help, but the description itself is too thin to be complete.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents each parameter clearly (rls, name, public, lock_records). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'entity' are clear, but 'settings' is vague and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like entities_create, entities_get, or entities_delete. An agent knows it updates entities, but not which settings or how it differs operationally from other entity tools.

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 entities_create or entities_delete, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It states only what the tool does, leaving usage context to inference.

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