d365fo_update_entity_record

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It indicates mutation ('update') and optional return via return_record, but omits details on error handling, idempotency, concurrency, or what happens if the record does not exist. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise: a one-line summary followed by structured Args and Returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more compact by omitting docstring conventions (Args, Returns headings) or adding a sentence on typical usage.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters with nested objects, the description could be more complete. It lacks details on return value format ('Dictionary with update result' is vague), error behavior, and required permissions. The sibling list includes many operations, but this tool's description does not help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all parameters. For example, entity_name is defined as 'public collection name or entity set name' with examples. key_fields and key_values are described as for composite keys. This adds value beyond the schema field names.

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 'Update an existing record in a D365 Finance & Operations data entity.' This uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('existing record in D365 FO data entity'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_entity_record and delete_entity_record.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that the entity must already exist, nor does it contrast with create (for new records) or delete. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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