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

Annotations only provide readOnly=false, so the description carries the burden of exposing mutation behavior. It discloses write scope, one-time secret return, immediate invalidation of the old secret, and the coordination requirement for rotateSecret, going well beyond 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?

Three sentences carry the essential information with no redundancy. The endpoint and primary purpose are front-loaded, and the rotateSecret warning is placed where it matters most.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still covers the output-critical behavior: a new signing secret is returned once. Combined with the rich schema, an agent has enough to call this tool correctly, including the operational risk of rotating the secret.

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, and the description adds additional meaningful semantics: partial update, requiring at least one field, and the special side-effect of rotateSecret. It focuses on the riskiest parameter rather than duplicating 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Change'), a specific resource ('a webhook'), and the endpoint/method (PATCH /tenant-webhooks/{id}). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_webhook, delete_webhook, get_webhook, and list_webhooks.

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 makes the intended usage clear with partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change; pass at least one') and gives a strong caution for rotateSecret. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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