foundry_update_entity

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose whether data is merged or replaced, what permissions are required, what happens if both uuid and selected are provided, or the success/failure response. The description's only extra is the targeting modes, which do not illuminate the update behavior itself.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and targeting. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and a general 'entity' concept, the description is underspecified. It lacks essential context such as what an 'entity' is in this Foundry MCP context, whether the update is partial or full replacement, what response to expect, and any constraints (e.g., cannot use both uuid and selected). The presence of many sibling tools (create, delete, get) makes the lack of boundary-clarifying context more impactful.

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 coverage is 50% (data, userId, clientId have descriptions; uuid, actor, selected do not). The description adds context that uuid and selected are alternative ways to identify the entity, which helps interpret those parameters. However, it does not compensate for the vague 'data' parameter (just 'JSON object accepted by Foundry') or clarify the role of actor or the interaction between parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Update a Foundry entity') and specifies the targeting mechanism ('by UUID or the current selection'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like foundry_create_entity and foundry_delete_entity, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to modify an existing entity, identified either by uuid or through the current selection in Foundry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'update' and targeting modes provide clear contextual usage for an action-oriented tool.

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