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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether changes take effect immediately, or what permissions are needed for a mutation.

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; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly why behavioral and usage detail are absent.

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?

With four fully documented parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the essentials are present. The notable gap for a mutation tool is partial-update semantics (what happens to fields not supplied), which neither schema nor description addresses.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents id, url, events and is_active with types and the HTTPS constraint. The description merely restates the mutable fields in prose and adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 (webhook) plus the three mutable fields, so an agent can distinguish it from create_webhook, delete_webhook, get_webhook and rotate_webhook_secret. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 prerequisites (e.g. that the webhook must already exist, or that the ID comes from list_webhooks), and no mention of alternatives such as rotate_webhook_secret for credential changes. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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