strapi_update_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain whether the update is partial (PATCH) or full-replacement (PUT), what occurs if the entry does not exist, or how the Strapi version is determined. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the verb, resource, version-specific identifiers, and transport method without redundant information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits update semantics (partial vs full replacement), error handling, and version assumptions. The schema richness is moderate but does not compensate for these essential gaps.

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 already describes data, queryJson, and contentType well, and the description adds critical meaning to the documentIdOrId parameter by clarifying that it is documentId in Strapi 5 or id in Strapi 4. This compensates for the missing schema description on that parameter.

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 Strapi entry') and the resource, while explicitly distinguishing between Strapi 5 (documentId) and Strapi 4 (id). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like create_entry, get_entry, and delete_entry.

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 context is inferable from the name and description—it is used to update an existing Strapi entry—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria such as 'only for existing entries' or version prerequisites.

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