updateEntity

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds that it updates specific properties but does not disclose additional traits like whether partial updates are allowed or how missing fields are handled. The schema covers this partly.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No redundancy or extraneous information.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and annotations clarifying safety, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks mention of return value or side effects, but since there is no output schema, this is not a critical gap.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so the description's listing of properties adds minimal value beyond the schema. It confirms which properties are updatable but does not explain semantics like default behavior or constraints.

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 updates an existing entity and lists specific properties (position, color, label, scale, visibility). This matches the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like addMarker or removeEntity.

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 for modifying existing entities, which is straightforward given the tool is the only update tool among siblings. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives (e.g., if full replacement is needed) is provided.

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