updateEntity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds the return format (success, data, message, error) but does not mention partial vs. full updates, behavior on non-existent entities, or error conditions, which would enhance transparency.

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 sentence stating the action and return type, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose and concise enough to be quickly parsed.

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?

While annotations and output schema cover many aspects, the description does not address prerequisites (e.g., entity must exist) or specific error scenarios. It is adequate for basic usage but lacks detail on failure modes and the effect of partial updates, which would make it more 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%, and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not provide extra guidance on parameter relationships or usage nuances.

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 entity's position, appearance, label, or visibility. This is a specific verb (update) and resource (entity), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like addMarker or removeEntity by focusing on mutation of existing entities.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like addMarker or removeEntity. It implies usage for modifying existing entities but lacks explicit guidance on distinctions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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