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

Annotations already declare mutation safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), so the description's main added behavioral value is the partial-patch semantics for secrets ('Secrets you leave out of the patch are kept'). It does not explain merge/replace behavior for the other mutable fields, permissions required, or what the operation returns, leaving meaningful ambiguity 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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads the field scope, and the second adds a non-obvious patch detail. There is no filler, and the most important content appears first.

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 a nested patch object and no output schema, the description gives a useful field inventory and one key merge rule for secrets. It still leaves open whether omitted non-secret fields are retained or reset, what response to expect, and what the slug/organizationId constraints are.

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 67%, but the key 'patch' parameter is an undescribed nested object with additionalProperties=true; the description compensates well by enumerating the fields it can contain. However, the 'slug' parameter is documented only as 'Slug' and 'organizationId' only as 'Approved workspace id only.', so the description does not fully close the remaining gaps.

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 gives a specific mutation verb and enumerates the mutable fields (code, description, secrets, input fields, category, tags, timeout), which makes the operation's scope clear. It does not explicitly name the resource 'hosted function' or differentiate from siblings like update_user_api or update_product, relying on the title/name for that context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_user_api, update_product, or delete_hosted_function, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent information is the field list and the secrets merge note.

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