update_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that updates do not require redeployment and that schedule can be removed (null). However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., restarts), authorization requirements, or tier limits beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by specific parameter guidance. Highly efficient.

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?

For a simple update tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action well but lacks details about return values (e.g., success indication) and potential preconditions (e.g., function exists). Adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the schedule parameter in more detail (cron expression format, null to remove). For memory/timeout, it does not add beyond 'tier limits apply' which is in schema. Minimal extra meaning.

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 uses specific verb 'Update' and resource 'function' with the capabilities 'schedule, timeout, or memory without re-deploying code'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_function (which redeploys code) and delete_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 implies when to use this tool—for updating settings without redeploying—and provides explicit guidance on the schedule parameter (pass cron expression or null). However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives like functions_rebuild.

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