update_http_function

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

Beyond the bare readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses two meaningful behaviors: the write replaces the entire file ('FULL... content') and it auto-deploys to the bundle service after updating. That side effect is not captured by annotations. It stops short of noting permissions, reversibility, or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: core action, when-to-use plus alternative, and the deploy side effect. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, replacement semantics, and the auto-deploy side effect. It is essentially complete; only optional extras like auth or rollback behavior are absent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a single parameter, the schema already documents 'content'. The description still adds value by stressing that content must be the FULL file rather than a diff, which is the key semantic distinction from edit_http_function. Marginal but real added 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write the FULL HTTP function file content') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling edit_http_function. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from the targeted-edit alternative without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases ('new features, major refactors, or changes that touch multiple functions') and names the alternative with its own condition ('For small targeted edits... use edit_http_function instead'). The routing decision is fully specified.

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