updateEntity

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the change is recorded as an appended event, that the update is partial ("only the supplied fields change; confidence, properties, identifiers, and coordinates are untouched"), and it names two concrete error codes. It omits permission/auth requirements and idempotency, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, and the core action plus the 'at least one field' rule are front-loaded before error and partial-update details.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema already documenting return values, the description covers action, constraint, error behavior, and untouched state. The only meaningful omission is who is allowed to perform the update.

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%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds a constraint the schema cannot express: entityUid is the only required field yet at least one of kind/displayName must be present or the call fails with E_VALIDATION. That cross-parameter rule is genuine added meaning.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource ("Relabel an entity's kind and/or displayName") and names the underlying mechanism ("appending an entityUpdated event"), which is enough to separate it from createEntity, deleteEntity, mergeEntities and relate without opening any schema.

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?

It states a clear usage precondition — supply at least one of kind or displayName, otherwise E_VALIDATION — and gives the failure mode when uid doesn't resolve. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g. mergeEntities vs relabel) or an explicit "do not use this for X" exclusion, so it's a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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