update_function

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as 'MUTATING', aligning with readOnlyHint=false. It explains the dryRun behavior, which adds value beyond the annotations that already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences. The first states the purpose and scope, the second adds a critical behavioral note about dryRun. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key behavioral note. It does not explain return value, but that is not necessary without output schema. Some agents might benefit from more detail on the effect of updating parameters, but overall it's fairly complete.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It mentions 'code, name, or parameters' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Updates' and the resource 'an existing Cognigy.AI Function', and lists what can be changed (code, name, or parameters). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_function and delete_function by focusing on updating an existing 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 tells when to use it: 'to change code, name, or parameters.' It also mentions the dryRun flag and that setting it to false performs the update. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like create_function.

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