update_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' implying mutation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this overwrites or merges existing data, permission requirements, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

Extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. The parenthetical '(memory)' adds brief clarification without redundancy. Every element earns its place efficiently.

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 complexity (mutation tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool operates on 'entities' and uses 'memory_zone', which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('entities in knowledge graph') with parenthetical clarification ('memory'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_entities' (new creation) and 'delete_entities' (removal), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'move_entities' or 'mark_important' which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., entities must exist), when to choose 'update_entities' over 'add_observations' or 'mark_important', or any constraints like memory zone requirements. The description provides only basic functional context.

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