Update Catalog Entity

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds nothing about update semantics: it does not say whether this is a partial (PATCH) or full replacement update, what happens to omitted attributes, whether `slug` is silently derived from `name`, or that `data.id` is ignored. For a mutation tool with a nested payload, those are the most decision-relevant facts and they live only in the schema.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Conciseness is fine, but here brevity crosses into under-specification for a mutation endpoint, so it lands at minimum viable rather than strong.

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?

The tool takes a nested JSON:API body, has 2 required parameters, and no output-schema burden, yet the description leaves out update semantics, the deprecated `slug` trap, and how the entity is identified. An agent could call it with a well-formed but semantically wrong payload (e.g., expecting full replace, or trying to set a slug) without the description warning it.

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 only 50%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it does not — it says nothing about `id` accepting a UUID or slug, or about the `data` envelope. The useful semantics (ignored `slug`, ignored `data.id`, `external_id` uniqueness) exist solely in the schema, so the description adds zero value over the structured fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Update a specific Catalog Entity by id"), which is enough to identify the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as update_catalog, update_catalog_entity_property, or update_catalog_property, so the agent must rely on name matching alone. It is clear but thin.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of update_catalog or update_catalog_entity_property, and no prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions are mentioned. The only implied usage is "you have an id and want to change fields," which is not stated.

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