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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotation layer: it doesn't say updates are partial vs. full, which fields are mutable, or that unspecified fields are left untouched, despite 'input' being an open additionalProperties object.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the verb and scoping key appear immediately. It is arguably too terse to carry useful detail, but it is not padded or buried.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety/behavioral profile. What remains missing is guidance on partial vs. full update semantics for the open 'input' object and any routing versus the sibling setter tools — enough of a gap to keep this at minimum-viable.

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% — both webhookId and the input object are documented, including an inline example of the input shape, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes the webhookId parameter and adds no new semantics. 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 ('Update') and resource ('a webhook definition') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby sibling glpi_set_webhook_active, which also mutates a webhook, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative glpi_set_webhook_active for toggling activation state. Usage can only be inferred from the verb.

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