update_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It states 'without re-deploying code' indicating nondestructive intent, but does not mention authorization requirements, potential side effects, whether the change is immediate, or if there is any downtime. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no filler. Excellent structure.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core intent and differentiates legacy vs new but omits return value, error states, or result confirmation. It is adequate but could be more 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the schedule parameter by explaining it is for legacy surfaces, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on memory or timeout limits beyond schema notes.

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 timeout or memory without redeploying code. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from code redeployment, and mentions legacy schedule mutation as a secondary use. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deploy_function or invoke_function, but the core action is clear.

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 provides usage context: use for updating timeout/memory without redeploy, and notes that legacy schedule mutation is for old surfaces while new triggers should use ReleaseSpec. This gives implicit when-not-to-use guidance, though it could be more explicit about when to avoid this tool.

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