update_entity

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-destructive profile is already covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own—nothing about permissions, what 'fields' merges vs replaces, or the side effect of posting a 'comment' status update alongside the mutation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key scoping ('by id') present upfront and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse to earn a 5.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin. The rich nested fields object, links array, and the comment side effect are left entirely to the schema; the description does not tie these together or note that a status comment may be posted.

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 entityType, entityId, fields, links and comment are all documented in the schema, including the set/add command syntax for fields. The description only restates 'by id', adding nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (update) and the resources it applies to (project, portfolio, goal) scoped by id, which is clearer than a bare 'update entity'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as update_project or bulk_update_entities.

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 versus alternatives. The obvious siblings update_project and bulk_update_entities are never mentioned, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated.

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