Update entity

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds a real constraint beyond that: built-in entities reject updates, which is a failure condition the agent would otherwise not know. It still omits permission/auth requirements and what happens on an invalid entityId.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the constraint follows immediately, so nothing needs to be skimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, the input schema is fully documented, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. It supplies the one piece of context the structured fields lack (built-in entities), leaving only minor gaps like auth requirements.

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%, and the schema already explains that name and description are optional ('Omit to leave unchanged') and documents the entityId format. The description only restates the same two fields, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so 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 resource (entity) plus the exact updatable fields (display name, description). It is clearly distinct from its siblings create_entity, get_entity and list_entities, though it does not explicitly name those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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?

The sentence 'Built-in entities cannot be updated' gives a genuine when-not condition, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over archive_entity or create_entity, and no prerequisites or context beyond the built-in restriction are stated.

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