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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not say whether the update is a full replace or a partial merge, what happens to omitted fields, whether permissions/ownership are required, or how the hook behaves after modification.

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, verb and resource front-loaded, with the endpoint appended compactly. There is no filler, though the terseness means it omits useful substance rather than being over-long.

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 mutation tool that takes a nested body object with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description is nearly silent: no field semantics, no update semantics, no side effects, and no return information. An agent has to guess at much of the call's contract.

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 reported at 0% for the top-level id and body parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The nested body fields (name, is_safe, hash_key, description) are documented in the schema itself, so the description neither compensates for the top-level gap nor adds anything new.

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 (Update) and resource (data webhook), plus the HTTP endpoint PUT /api/v2/webhook/data/{id}, so the agent knows it is a mutation on an identified webhook. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as put_webhook_data_id_status (status-only update) or put_webhook_data_* variants, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus put_webhook_data_id_status, delete_webhook_data_id, or post_webhook_data. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing hints, so usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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