noark5_update_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses merge PATCH semantics (RFC 7396), that unchanged fields are preserved server-side, that sub-resources are not updatable this way, and that _links can reparent an entity. It also notes the return value. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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?

Although long, the description is well-structured with sections for semantics, exclusions, examples, and parent-moving. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical guidance (merge semantics and sub-resource exclusion) is front-loaded. The examples are illustrative without being redundant.

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's complexity, the description is highly complete. It covers what the tool does, what it cannot do, how to handle structured fields, how to reparent, and what the return value is. The presence of an output schema means return details need no further elaboration.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It defines entity_url as the self-href URL and changes as a JSON object mapping field names to new values, with concrete examples for single-field, multi-field, structured, and _links-based updates. This gives an agent everything needed to construct valid parameters.

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 operation: 'Update one or more fields on an entity using merge PATCH.' It distinguishes itself from create/delete/get siblings by focusing on partial updates and explicitly excludes sub-resource creation. The phrase 'only the specified fields are sent' adds precise scope.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable. It says this tool does NOT work for [0..*] or [1..*] sub-resources like 'forfatter' or 'noekkelord' and directs the agent to use noark5_create_secondary_entity instead. It also explains how to move an entity to a new parent using _links and references noark5_list_parents or noark5_entity_links.

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