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

Annotations already flag readOnly=false, destructive=true, and idempotent=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by defining partial-update semantics ('Changes only what you pass') and guaranteeing that the secret persists unchanged. This is consistent with the annotations and adds useful operational detail.

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 with no wasted words. The core partial-update behavior and mutable fields are front-loaded, and the secret guarantee is stated in one concise clause.

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 schema already documents the required IDs and their sources, and the description clarifies the scope of mutation, so an agent can form a correct call. The only notable gap is the absence of any mention of the response format, but with no output schema and a simple update operation this is a minor omission.

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 only 33%, with form_id and webhook_id described in the schema but url, events, enabled, and description left to bare type declarations. The description names those four mutable fields but does not explain their accepted values or semantics, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 precise action ('Changes') on a singular existing webhook and enumerates the four mutable fields: url, enabled, description, events. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the secret does not change, making it easy to tell apart from create_webhook or redeliver_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?

Implies usage as the tool for modifying fields on an already-created webhook, as opposed to creating or deleting one. However, it never names sibling alternatives or states when not to use it, so the boundary is inferred rather than explicit.

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