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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses partial-update behavior ('only the fields given change'), returns the updated webhook, the plan constraint when enabling, and owner/admin permissions. It also clarifies what this tool does not modify, which is important for a destructive mutation.

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 use case and then efficiently covers behavior, permissions, exclusions, and documentation. It is slightly dense but every clause contributes useful 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?

Given a destructive mutation with seven parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete: it covers intent, partial update behavior, return value, permissions, plan constraint, exclusions, and the alternative tool.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds useful context about partial updates and plan limits, but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: changing a webhook or chat channel. It enumerates the concrete changes (rename, events, sites, enabled state, custom URL) and explicitly distinguishes adding a webhook via add_webhook.

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 opens with an explicit use case ('when the user wants...') and names the alternative for adding a webhook. It also specifies exclusions, such as chat channel URL, headers, and signing secret, which remain on the Webhooks page.

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