update_entity

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context such as whether values replace or merge, what happens if the entity does not exist, or how unset interacts with existing properties. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not meaningfully expand on them.

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?

'Update an existing entity' is short and waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It essentially restates the tool name and does not earn a higher score based on content.

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 moderately complex mutation tool with nested value types, an unset array, and no output schema. The description omits core semantics such as partial versus full replacement, relationship to add_values_to_entity, and error behavior, leaving the agent without enough context to call it confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already documents id, name, unset, values, and description, but the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The complex typed values union is left entirely to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing entity'), making the basic operation clear. It distinguishes from create/delete but not from sibling add_values_to_entity, which could be confused for a similar value-modifying operation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like add_values_to_entity, create_entity, and delete_entity exist, but the description provides no selection criteria or exclusions.

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