edit_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the merge-on-rename behavior, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether merging deletes the original entity, whether updates are reversible, or what happens on failure. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Update an entity's properties') and adds the optional rename/merge behavior. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with a second sentence for edge cases.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and nested objects, but no annotations. The description covers the core behavior and the merge nuance, but doesn't explain return values (though output schema exists), failure modes, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the high-level behavior of renaming and merging, which maps to allow_rename and allow_merge, but doesn't add detail beyond the schema. The schema's updated_data description lists accepted fields, and the description's 'properties' phrase aligns with that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: 'Update an entity's properties, optionally renaming it (and merging it into an existing entity of the same new name, if allowed).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_entity, delete_entity, and merge_entities, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb 'update' and resource 'entity' are specific and clear.

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 usage context: use this to update properties or rename an entity, with optional merging. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like merge_entities or edit_relation, but the optional merge behavior is mentioned. The 'if allowed' phrase hints at constraints but doesn't detail them. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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