update_udf

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but gives no details on side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what changes are allowed. Minimal transparency.

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?

Description is very short (two words), which is concise but at the expense of utility. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail. Could be restructured to include more information without being verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema and two parameters (one being a free-form object), the description provides no context about expected behavior, return values, error scenarios, or how the configuration is applied. Severely incomplete for a mutating tool.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), yet the description provides zero information about udf_id or udf_config. It does not explain what the config object should contain or how the parameters are used. Completely fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the action (update) and resource (UDF configuration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_udf, get_udf, and run_udf, but does not explicitly differentiate. The phrase 'UDF configuration' is somewhat vague but sufficient for a basic understanding.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_udf for new UDFs). No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided. The description lacks usage direction.

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