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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, open-world, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: authorization is required, SSRF-safe DNS validation is performed, and the call returns a durable operation receipt.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, prerequisites, and return behavior without obvious filler. The documentation link is optional but does not meaningfully harm conciseness.

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?

The tool is a destructive, idempotent mutation with an output schema, and the description covers prerequisites and return behavior reasonably well. However, it omits required parameter semantics, so an agent cannot fully determine how to invoke it from the description alone.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions that URL or active state can be updated, but it does not explain the required endpointId or idempotencyKey semantics, leaving two required parameters undocumented.

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 specific verb (Updates), resource (tenant-owned Wisprs webhook), and scope (URL or active state). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as create_webhook_endpoint, delete_webhook_endpoint, and list_webhook_endpoints.

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?

It gives clear context and prerequisites: the endpoint is tenant-owned and the update occurs after authorization and SSRF-safe DNS validation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operational context is sufficient to select it over create/delete/list siblings.

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