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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value by clarifying patch semantics — omitted fields are preserved rather than cleared — which is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope front-loaded and the patch caveat immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

The tool is a straightforward partial update with fully documented parameters, and there is no output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, a mutation tool with no readOnlyHint and no description of permissions, side effects on the webhook secret, or response shape leaves moderate gaps for an agent operating without prior knowledge.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the phrase "Only the fields given change" disambiguates the nullable parameters: passing nothing means keep, not clear. That resolves the main ambiguity an agent would face when deciding whether to send null versus omit a field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Changes a webhook's...") and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what is being modified. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named `update_webhook` sibling, leaving the agent to guess which namespace applies.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is for modifying an existing webhook, and the patch semantics ("Only the fields given change") help. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over `update_webhook`, `desk_rotate_webhook_secret`, or `desk_test_webhook`, and no stated prerequisites such as the webhook existing.

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