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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: discloses immutability of trigger/channel, partial-update semantics (editing in place), state preservation on pause, and strict error handling (unknown fields return 400, never silently ignored). These are significant behavioral traits beyond what parameters imply.

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 each earn their place: purpose and editable fields, immutable-fields guidance, and error behavior. No redundant phrasing; front-loaded with the core function.

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 5-parameter patch tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: editable fields, immutability constraints, state behavior, and error handling. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with each parameter already described. The description adds extra meaning for 'enabled' (pausing/resuming without losing match-state) and clarifies the immutable fields, so it adds value beyond the schema without duplicating it.

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 'Edit a webhook in place' with the specific mutable fields listed, distinguishing it from create/delete/enable siblings. It also specifies which aspects are immutable (trigger and channel), making the tool's scope 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: for changing trigger/channel it says 'delete and re-create', and for re-enabling after auto-disable it points to tickerbot_enable_webhook. This gives clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use context.

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