update_function

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions no code redeployment and schedule manipulation via cron expression or null, but omits details like required function existence, permission needs, or impact on running instances.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value and is efficiently structured.

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 no output schema, the description provides enough context for a simple settings update tool. It covers main parameters and behavior, though a brief note on return values or success/error handling would be nice.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds semantic value for schedule (explains cron expression and null removal) and clarifies that memory/timeout are updatable without code redeployment. Slightly exceeds baseline.

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 updates a function's schedule, timeout, or memory, and distinguishes itself from redeploying code. It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('function') with explicit fields, differentiating from siblings like deploy_function.

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 implicitly advises use when only settings need changing, and not for code changes. It mentions 'without re-deploying code,' hinting at when not to use it, but lacks explicit alternatives or context about prerequisites.

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