passgage_update_entrance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool name ('Update an existing entrance') without detailing side effects, update semantics (partial vs full), authorization requirements, return values, or error conditions. This provides zero additional behavioral insight beyond what the name implies.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words or redundant information. However, it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool, so it does not fully earn its place as a standalone guide.

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 tool has an open-ended 'data' object with additionalProperties true, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what fields can be updated, whether it is a partial update, or what response to expect. An agent would lack sufficient context to invoke this correctly beyond basic schema understanding.

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 already covers both parameters (id and data) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('an existing entrance'), making it distinct from the sibling create/delete/get/list operations for entrances. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 for modifying an existing entrance, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as fetching the entrance first or using create/delete. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given.

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