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

Annotations already declare mutation, destructiveness, idempotency, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context such as plan requirement, zero cost, required id source, and pausing behavior, but it does not explain what destructive effects might occur, whether webhook changes trigger immediate side effects, or what happens to omitted fields.

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?

The description is front-loaded and easy to scan, with required id, optional fields, pause behavior, and cost separated clearly. The Pro/Enterprise plan requirement is repeated in the final line, creating minor redundancy.

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 an 11-parameter destructive update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call prerequisites and one important operational behavior. However, it remains incomplete on most parameter semantics and on the practical consequences of updating a webhook alert.

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 low at 27% across 11 parameters. The description explains the required id source and the is_active pause behavior, and notes other fields are optional, but it leaves most parameters such as prix_max, commune, webhook_url, and type_local without added meaning beyond their names and types.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing webhook alert.' It clearly distinguishes this mutation tool from sibling tools such as create_market_alert, list_market_alerts, and delete_market_alert by stating it updates an existing alert.

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?

It gives clear usage prerequisites: Pro or Enterprise plan, a required id sourced from list_market_alerts, and guidance to use is_active false to pause instead of delete. It does not explicitly compare update vs create scenarios, but the update-existing context is clear.

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