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

The description adds valuable context: org:manage scope, HTTP method/path, rate limits, and the one-time-only return of webhook_secret_raw. However, the regenerate_webhook_secret behavior directly contradicts the idempotentHint=true annotation, because repeated calls with regenerate_webhook_secret=true produce new secrets. Per the rubric, this is an annotation contradiction, which forces a score of 1 regardless of the other useful context.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action, then highlights the non-obvious secret regeneration behavior, then provides scope and API mapping. Every sentence adds information; there is no padding 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers the required scope, the HTTP mapping, the single critical response field, and warns against inventing paths. The main gap is the unresolved inconsistency with idempotentHint, which prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with helpful descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational meaning for regenerate_webhook_secret by explaining the new secret is returned in webhook_secret_raw and shown only once. It also groups webhook-related fields under 'webhook configuration,' aiding parameter understanding.

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 operation: update the current app's settings, including webhook configuration. It also provides the OpenAPI operationId and exact PATCH path, which makes the tool unambiguous and distinct from sibling update tools like updateOrganization, updatePass, and updateTemplate.

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 identifies the target resource as the current app and gives a concrete use case (regenerating a webhook secret). It also explicitly says to use the same PassFast HTTP API and instructs the agent not to invent other paths, which helps prevent hallucinated endpoints. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling update tools, but the resource scoping is strong enough for correct routing.

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