Update Catalog Entity Property

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

Annotations already declare idempotency, non-destructiveness, and mutation semantics, and the description adds the crucial deprecation status. However, it never explains update semantics on the payload — whether omitted attribute keys/values are cleared, merged, or rejected — which matters for a PATCH-style tool.

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 sentences, with the most decision-relevant information (deprecation and replacement path) front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and a nested payload, the definition covers the critical deprecation context well. The remaining gap — partial-update behavior of `attributes` — is small but real for a mutation tool.

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?

At 50% schema description coverage, the description only echoes 'by id' and adds no meaning about the `data`/`attributes` structure. It does not clarify whether `key`/`value` must both be supplied, which is the main ambiguity in the nested 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a specific Catalog Entity Property by id'), so an agent knows exactly what mutation occurs. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_catalog_entity_property or create_catalog_entity_property, but the naming and 'by id' scoping make the distinction obvious.

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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it ('Deprecated: please use the `fields` attribute on catalog entities or native catalog endpoints... instead') and names the concrete alternatives. This is exactly the kind of routing guidance that prevents an agent from calling a dead endpoint.

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