undefine_function

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

The description clarifies that the code remains but is no longer treated as a function, which is useful behavioral context beyond a bare mutation notice. With no annotations provided, this is decent but could still detail side effects like relationship changes in cross-references or local variable handling.

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 two short sentences with essential information front-loaded. Every sentence contributes, but it could integrate parameter guidance more seamlessly without adding bulk.

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 the tool has one parameter, a description, and an output schema, it lacks completeness on parameter format and any conditions that make the operation invalid (e.g., address not pointing to a valid function). The output schema existence slightly reduces the load, yet the description does not indicate what output to expect or error states.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not describe the 'address' parameter beyond its type. The tool has only one required parameter and the description adds no format or semantic constraints such as whether it should be hexadecimal or decimal, leaving a gap for the agent to guess.

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 states it deletes/undefines a function at an address, which is specific verb+resource. But among siblings like 'define_function', 'rename_function', and 'disassemble_function', it does not clearly differentiate when to use undefine vs these, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 like 'define_function' or 'get_function_info'. The description implies use for changing function status but no context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without decision support.

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