update_functions_for_file

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. However, the description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether partial updates are possible, what happens to unspecified functions, or error handling. It fails to elaborate beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is good for brevity, but it omits important details. It could include more context without significantly increasing length, such as note about atomicity or return value.

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 and a mutation operation, the description should explain what the tool returns or its side effects. It lacks any mention of success/failure, atomicity, or effects on the file's state. The context is incomplete for an AI agent to use reliably.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., file ID, function update objects). Baseline score 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 'Update multiple functions in a single file', specifying the verb (update), resource (multiple functions), and scope (single file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_function' (single function) and 'update_function_file_location' (relocation).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that for updating a single function one should use 'update_function', or any prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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