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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the specific fields that can be updated but does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as partial-update semantics, validation rules, or side effects. No contradiction with 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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly enumerates the updateable fields. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain that webhook_id must refer to an existing webhook, whether fields are optional, or whether updates merge or replace existing values. The low schema description coverage further increases the need for more contextual guidance.

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?

The description lists the updatable attributes (URL, events, active status, secret), which maps to the url, events, is_active, and secret parameters. With schema description coverage at only 20%, this partial compensation is helpful, but it does not provide detailed format or constraint information for each parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a webhook') with specific updatable attributes (URL, events, active status, secret). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook and delete_webhook.

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?

The verb 'Update' implies usage for modifying an existing webhook, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or typical scenarios. It is adequate but not explicit.

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