cantrip_entity_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that extra fields are stored in extensions and that 'project' overrides configuration files, adding important context beyond basic editing. However, it doesn't address permissions, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful edit, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the core purpose, parameter guidance, and special context for the 'project' parameter. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loading the essential information about editing entities.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the editing mechanism and some behavioral aspects but lacks information about return values, error handling, or side effects. Given the complexity of editing multiple entity types with field variations, more comprehensive guidance would be beneficial.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds meaningful context by explaining field variations by type, the 'fields' object purpose for additional fields, and the specific use case for the 'project' parameter. This provides valuable semantic understanding beyond the schema's technical specifications.

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 action ('Edit an existing entity') and resource ('entity'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'cantrip_entity_add' by specifying 'existing' rather than new creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other entity-related tools like 'cantrip_history' or 'cantrip_review' operations.

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 implies usage context by referencing 'same as cantrip_entity_add' for field variations and mentioning cloud-hosted/multi-project contexts for the 'project' parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cantrip_entity_add' for creation or other entity management tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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