entity_update

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds one genuine behavioral limit the annotations do not convey: attached entities cannot be targeted. It stays silent on the more consequential behaviors, notably that expected_revision implies optimistic-concurrency rejection of stale writes and whether request_id provides replay deduplication despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the exclusion is placed immediately after the action. The brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with composite EntityRef/ModelRef identifiers, an epoch/generation scheme, a revision precondition, and no output schema, and the description covers almost none of that. The requirement to supply all 5 attrs and a 3-element position, and the meaning of model_ref, are left entirely to the schema.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It alludes to entity_ref, position and attrs only obliquely, and never mentions request_id, map_epoch, model_ref, or expected_revision — the last being critical, since an agent that misuses it will silently fail or overwrite stale state.

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 ('Replace') plus the resources being replaced ('position/attrs') and the target ('a referenced entity'), so an agent knows this is a mutation of an existing entity rather than creation or deletion. It does not explicitly contrast itself with entity_create or entity_delete, but the verb/resource pairing is unambiguous on its own.

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 only usage-shaped sentence is a negative constraint ('Attached entities are unsupported'); there is no positive guidance on when to choose this over entity_create/entity_delete, and no mention of how to obtain a valid entity_ref or expected_revision first. An agent is left to infer prerequisites from sibling schemas.

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