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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description usefully adds the non-obvious behavioral facts that only sent fields change (partial update) and that `secret` is write-only and never returned. It does not, however, explain what the destructive flag actually implies for an agent.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the fields-sent semantics, then the special id and targeting rules. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described; the description covers the id//primary semantics, partial updates, and write-only secret. The remaining gap is a statement of the destructive/idempotent consequences and any auth requirements.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by defining `webhookId` = `primary` and the `campaignId`/GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID fallback, but `events`, `payloadUrl`, and `isEnabled` get no explanation beyond their names and are left undocumented in both places.

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: 'Update a webhook on your GrowSurf program by id.' The update verb distinguishes it from the sibling webhook tools (list/create/delete/test), though it does not name an alternative explicitly. Clear but no deliberate sibling routing.

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 when to use it (you have an existing webhook id and want to change fields) and clarifies the partial-update contract. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites/permissions, and no comparison against growsurf_create_campaign_webhook or growsurf_delete_campaign_webhook.

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