create_function_run

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions idempotency key, scheduling options, expiry, retry policy, and optional wait, but lacks details on conflict handling (e.g., reusing idempotency key) and whether the call is synchronous or asynchronous. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core action and requirement (idempotency key), the second lists capabilities and usage context. No wasted words; essential information is front-loaded.

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's complexity (14 parameters, nested retry object) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (idempotency, scheduling, expiry, retry, wait). It omits payload and event_type details, but these are in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 high (93%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by grouping scheduling types (immediate, delayed, run_at) and mentioning retry policy, but does not significantly elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool creates a durable function run, specifies the required idempotency key, and lists key features like scheduling, expiry, and retry policy. It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with ad hoc cron/polling, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description explicitly states 'Use this instead of ad hoc cron/polling when work must survive retries or be redriven,' providing clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It also implies its suitability for durable, retryable work.

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