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

Adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the tool is a read-modify-write that re-sends current values for omitted fields because the API requires all three, and events fully replaces the existing set. This materially softens the destructiveHint=true profile by explaining that unspecified fields are preserved. It stops short of covering error behavior, permission needs, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, no filler, and the update contract is front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool pointer and the dry_run tip. Every clause carries operational information.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mechanics an agent most needs: partial update semantics, event-set replacement, preview mode, and the toggle alternative. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (invalid URL, unknown event) but nothing blocking.

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 description still adds meaning: the partial-update contract (only given fields change, the rest are re-read and resent) clarifies why webhook_id is the sole required parameter, and the dry_run explanation is richer than the schema's ("see the merged values that would be sent").

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 and resource ("Update an existing webhook's configuration") and immediately narrows scope to the three mutable fields (name, url, events), separating it from create_webhook/delete_webhook and from toggle_webhook by name. An agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: use toggle_webhook to enable or disable, and set dry_run: true to preview. It does not state when to prefer create_webhook or delete_webhook, but the mutation-vs-toggle boundary is the one most likely to be confused, and that is covered.

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