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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds one real consequence — future events are delivered to the new URL — but doesn't say whether omitted fields are left untouched, whether passing events/filter replaces the existing values, or that a bad URL could silently drop deliveries.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the actionable list of fields, and no filler. The delivery-routing note in the second sentence carries real information rather than restating the name.

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 partial-update tool with a fairly rich schema and explicit annotations, the description covers the main mutation surface and its effect. The remaining gaps — all_events, and whether list-valued fields overwrite — are noticeable but not blocking for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 71%, so baseline is around 3. The description names five of the six optional parameters in plain terms (url, name, events, filter, enabled), which helps an agent map intent to fields, but it never mentions all_events or explains replacement-vs-merge behavior for events and filter.

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 (update) and resource (webhook) plus the set of mutable fields, so an agent knows exactly what it changes. It doesn't explicitly separate it from neighbors like create-webhook or reset-webhook-secret, but the field list makes the intent unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this versus test-webhook, retry-webhook-request, reset-webhook-secret, or delete-webhook. The phrase 'enable it again' faintly hints at using this to re-activate a disabled webhook, but no conditions or exclusions are given.

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