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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the v1 read-only constraint, but is silent on the behavior that matters most for a mutation: whether `body` replaces the entire webhook configuration or merges into it, and what happens to omitted fields such as eventTypes.

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?

Short, but wasted: "Update a webhook" appears twice as a heading and again as the opening sentence. The one genuinely useful sentence (legacy v1 handling) is buried behind that repetition instead of being front-loaded.

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?

A destructive mutation with a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no permissions detail. The agent still cannot tell whether a partial body is safe, whether projectId is required for this key, or what a successful response contains, so the definition is under-specified for the complexity involved.

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?

Description says nothing about the `request` wrapper, the required `id`, or the optional `projectId` scoping rules. Schema description coverage is reported at 0% for the top-level parameter, so the description needed to compensate for nested-object ambiguity (partial vs full body) and does not.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ("Update a webhook"), which distinguishes it cleanly from webhooks-create, webhooks-delete and webhooks-retrieve in the sibling list. The legacy v1 caveat adds real scope information rather than restating the name.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not case (legacy v1 webhooks are read-only) and names the alternative workflow (delete, then create a new webhook). It stops short of stating when an update is preferable to recreating a v2 webhook, so it is clear context without full routing logic.

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