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

The description discloses the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are updated') and notes the authentication prerequisite, adding value beyond the annotations. While annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructive behavior, the description provides useful context about when to supply auth config, which is not visible in structured data.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information. It is concise without sacrificing clarity, and there is no filler or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose, usage, partial update behavior, and authentication nuances. It does not explain return values or side effects, but for an update tool with idempotency annotations, this is sufficient. A perfect score would require more explicit statements about consequences, but none are critical.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that webhookConfigJson is specifically for auth (e.g., when receiving 401), and reinforces the meaning of webhookUrl as the delivery endpoint. This contextual nuance goes beyond the schema, warranting a 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update webhook settings for a task.' It specifies the resource (webhook settings) and the action (update/configure), and distinguishes itself from the sibling test_task_webhook by focusing on updating rather than testing. The scope is unambiguous.

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 description gives clear usage context: when to configure webhookUrl and/or authentication, and explicitly says to provide webhookConfigJson when the endpoint requires auth. It also notes the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are updated'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for testing), so it falls just short of a 5.

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