update_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It warns that 'body is executed verbatim as DDL' and mentions compatibility restrictions. However, it does not cover other important aspects such as atomicity, permission requirements, or error handling. The disclosure is helpful but incomplete.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by relevant notes and a caution. The structure is logical, but the preview feature note may be extraneous for general use. Overall, it is concise without being overly verbose, earning a high score.

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 tool handles a complex DDL operation with 4 required parameters and an output schema (likely defined elsewhere), the description covers the core aspects: parameter explanations, DDL execution warning, and compatibility constraints. It does not discuss success/error responses, but the presence of an output schema likely covers that. The description is complete enough for most use cases.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description's 'Args' section provides essential meaning for all four parameters. It explains formats (name or GUID), provides examples, and describes what the body should contain. This adds significant value beyond the schema's titles, though some details (e.g., exact format of workspace) could be more precise.

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 'Redefine a T-SQL user-defined function' and mentions the DDL command. It is clear that the tool modifies an existing function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'create_function', which could cause confusion. A more distinct contrast would elevate this to a 5.

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 includes important notes about limitations (cannot change function kind) and a caution about DDL execution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_function' or 'drop_function'. The usage context is implied but not directly stated, resulting in a moderate score.

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