UpdateEntity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update Existing Entity' implies mutation but does not explain side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the existing entity's properties. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it mostly restates the tool name ('Update' + 'Entity') with only 'Existing' adding minimal meaning. It is concise but borderline tautological and does not earn its place with useful detail.

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 the empty schema, no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of similar sibling tools, this description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It omits what inputs are actually needed, what the update covers, and what response to expect.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The 100% schema coverage plus zero-parameter baseline supports a score of 4; however, the description does not clarify how the target entity is identified, which is a contextual concern rather than a parameter-semantics one.

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 identifies a verb ('Update') and resource ('Existing Entity'), which is minimally clear and distinguishes it from CreateEntity via the word 'Existing.' However, it does not differentiate among the many sibling update tools such as UpdateEntityState, UpdateEntityGetIDVToken, and UpdateCheckEntity, leaving the exact scope of this update vague.

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 is provided about when to use this tool rather than the numerous sibling update/create/query variants. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, so an agent cannot decide between UpdateEntity and UpdateEntityState based on this description.

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