NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an entity's fields' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use this tool safely and effectively.

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?

The description is extremely concise—a single four-word phrase—with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('update') and resource ('entity's fields'). While it may be too brief for adequate tool understanding, it earns full marks for conciseness and structure within the given text.

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 that this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters (1 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may handle return values, the description fails to provide necessary context about what entities are, which fields can be updated, update behavior, or error handling. For a tool with this complexity and lack of supporting documentation, the description is insufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the 5 parameters have any documentation in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name's implication of 'update'—it doesn't explain what 'id', 'name', 'type', 'value', or 'notes' represent, their formats, constraints, or relationships. This is inadequate compensation for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Update an entity's fields' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('entity's fields'), but it's vague about what an 'entity' represents in this context. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'nexo_entity_create' and 'nexo_entity_delete', but doesn't clarify what makes it different from 'nexo_entity_search' or 'nexo_entity_list' beyond the basic operation type.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing entity ID), when not to use it, or what alternatives exist for similar operations. The presence of sibling tools like 'nexo_entity_create' and 'nexo_entity_delete' suggests a family of entity operations, but no contextual guidance is given.

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