edit_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and closed-world profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds almost nothing: it does not say that 'remove' deletes the entity, how 'value' is interpreted per collection, or what happens on an expectedRevision conflict, which are the traits an agent actually needs for a multi-operation mutator.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and target list before the use-case hint. No padding or repetition; the only shortfall is that the second sentence is vague rather than being an efficient qualifier.

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 7-parameter mutating tool with a nested untyped 'value' object, no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is thin. It conveys the action space (collections x operations) adequately but leaves the payload shape and concurrency semantics for the agent to guess.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It names only 'id' and the collection/operation concepts; 'value' (a free-form nested object whose meaning changes per collection), 'expectedRevision' (optimistic concurrency), 'requestId' and 'sessionId' are left entirely unexplained.

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 concrete verb set (add/update/remove) plus the five target collections and the id-based addressing, which is more specific than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from direct siblings like add_parameter, add_trigger, add_binding and create_state_machine, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when this generic editor is preferable to the dedicated per-collection 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?

'Use for advanced guards, transitions, formula wiring and runtime behavior' implies a context (complex/interactive setups) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not rule and never names an alternative sibling. The guidance is suggestive rather than actionable.

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