update_kernel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'via pull+push' hints that the operation fetches and re-uploads the kernel, but it does not say whether this overwrites existing content, creates a new version, requires special permissions, or has other side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is so terse that it under-specifies the operation for a tool with five required parameters and no other documentation.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this definition is incomplete. An agent cannot know what ref expects, what the return value looks like, or what the pull+push behavior actually changes on the remote kernel.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only says 'metadata' without naming or explaining any of the five required parameters. While booleans like enable_gpu and is_private are self-explanatory, 'ref' is ambiguous and no format or meaning is provided.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('kernel metadata'), so an agent can tell this is a metadata mutation rather than creation or deletion. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling toggle_kernel_visibility, which also concerns metadata like visibility.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or alternative. The 'pull+push' hint implies a workflow, but does not explain when this tool should be preferred over push_notebook, toggle_kernel_visibility, or other sibling operations.

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