Update Custom Function

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: new code is compile-checked, and every calling rule set will use the new code from its next generation. This reveals side effects and validation behavior. Annotations already cover destructive and idempotent hints, so this is good additional value.

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 well-structured sentences: the first front-loads the action and key behavior (compile check), the second adds essential propagation context. 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?

Covers what changes, the compile check, and downstream effect, which are the critical behavioral facts for a destructive mutation. With annotations and an output schema handling safety and return values, only minor gaps (e.g., permission requirements) remain.

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 the schema already documents each parameter (function_id, code, category, description). The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (custom function's code, description, category), distinguishing it from create/validate siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify when to use this versus validate_custom_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?

Provides context about compilation checking and propagation effect, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like validate_custom_function or create_custom_function. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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