update_entity

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

Discloses OCC behavior: auto-increment version, VersionConflictError, and last-write-wins fallback. However, with no annotations, the description carries full burden. It omits details like whether updates are atomic, what happens to unspecified fields, and what the return value is (no output schema). Some transparency but incomplete.

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 sentences, efficient and front-loaded with purpose. The opening code 'η.5.5.c' is minor noise but does not degrade clarity significantly. Could be slightly more structured, but overall concise.

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?

Missing critical context: no guidance on alternatives given the large sibling list, no mention of permissions or side effects, and no description of return value (no output schema). The complexity of the tool and the many siblings demand more completeness than provided.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds extra context beyond the schema: explaining OCC modes and that version auto-increments. This helps the agent understand the parameter's significance beyond the schema description.

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 'Update an entity' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The addition of 'with optional optimistic concurrency control' distinguishes it from a basic update. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings like set_entity_parent or create_entities, so it loses a point for not fully differentiating.

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?

Explains when to use expectedVersion vs omit, which provides usage guidance for the optional parameter. But it does not address when to use this tool over alternatives such as set_entity_parent or delete_entities. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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