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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the small detail that active:false pauses delivery, and it never mentions that passing events or url replaces existing values, nor the secret/retry implications. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the pausing behavior is called out parenthetically where the agent will see it. It is efficient but so terse that two of the six parameters go unmentioned.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with six parameters and no output schema, the description omits the numbers filter (replace/clear semantics) and the description field entirely, and does not say whether unspecified fields are preserved. Adequate for a basic edit but incomplete for a destructive op.

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 50%, and the two undocumented parameters are exactly url and events, both of which the description names as updatable fields. That meaningfully compensates for the gap, though it adds no detail on accepted event formats or wildcard syntax.

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?

"Change a webhook endpoint" gives a specific verb and resource, and the field list (URL, events, active) makes it clearly the mutation counterpart to create_webhook/delete_webhook. It never names those siblings or clarifies that it only updates an existing endpoint, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus create_webhook, delete_webhook, rotate_webhook_secret, or get_webhook to inspect current settings first. The agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name.

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