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

Annotations already declare the full profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not explain partial-update semantics, auth requirements, or side effects despite idempotentHint=false being non-obvious.

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?

A single efficient, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is arguably under-specified, but there is no wasted text to penalize.

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?

Because annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, the description need not explain returns or side effects. Still, for a 5-parameter mutation tool it provides no usage context or field guidance, leaving gaps an agent would have to fill from schema 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 100%, so all five parameters (url, sources, triggers, webhook_id, secret_token) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('update a webhook'), which is clear enough to act on. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_webhook, delete_webhook, or list_webhooks, nor does it hint at which fields are mutable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_webhook for new listeners or delete_webhook for removal. The agent must infer that this applies only to existing webhooks.

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