updateEntity

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false) already indicate a safe mutation operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the update action and return type. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence followed by the return type structure. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous 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?

Given no output schema, the description provides the return shape (success boolean, data, message, error). It covers the tool's purpose and parameters. Could be improved by noting that the entityId must exist, but overall adequate.

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 100% with all parameters described. The description lists the high-level categories (position, appearance, label, visibility) but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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 description uses the verb 'update' with a specific resource 'entity' and enumerates the modifiable aspects: position, appearance, label, or visibility. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like addMarker (create) and removeEntity (delete).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as highlight, setLayerVisibility, or removeEntity. It does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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