deploy_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: handler signature, auto-bundled imports, dependency bundling rules (max entries, rejected packages), native binary rejection, schedule handling via manifest, and response fields. This exceeds minimal transparency requirements.

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 well-structured and efficient: first sentence covers core purpose, then handler, imports, dep details, schedule guidance, and response. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition, making it highly informative yet 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, nested config, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers deployment purpose, handler signature, import capabilities, dependency bundling rules, schedule guidance, and response fields. It adequately addresses the necessary context for effective use.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds significant semantic value: explains deps formats (bare names, pinned, ranges), max entries, character limits, rejection of specific packages, and response details (runtime_version, deps_resolved, warnings) beyond schema descriptions.

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 deploys a serverless function (Node 22) to a project, specifying handler signature and import capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like deploy_site by focusing on serverless functions and provides unique details about dependency bundling.

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 gives some guidance on when to prefer a unified deploy manifest for schedule/email triggers, implying an alternative approach. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons with other deploy tools (e.g., deploy, update_function) beyond that one note.

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