Update Entity (Snipe-IT)

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency (idempotentHint=false). The description adds the PATCH semantics detail and write access requirement, which is consistent and adds value without contradiction.

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 tight sentences: one for purpose and one for access requirement. No filler. Front-loaded with key action and resource. Every word 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?

Given the three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and access need. It does not detail patch structure or error handling, but sibling differentiation and annotations fill some gaps. Adequate for a mutation tool with moderate complexity.

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 67% with descriptions for entity and patch. The description does not add detail beyond the schema for parameters. It mentions 'non-asset entity' which aligns with the entity enum description. No additional semantic guidance is provided for the patch object or id.

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 clearly states the verb (partially update), resource (non-asset entity), and HTTP semantics (PATCH). It distinguishes from asset-specific tools via the entity enum description referencing 'assets/hardware have their own 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 implies use for non-asset entities by noting assets have separate tools, and requires write access. It does not explicitly state when not to use or enumerate alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent.

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