discord_edit_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that tokens are never returned, a useful side effect, but it does not mention that this is a state-changing operation, any permission requirements, or potential failure modes. The behavioral transparency is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with zero fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the note about tokens is placed secondarily. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not mention that webhook_id is required (though the schema shows it), nor does it clarify optionality of name/channel, or any constraints. While the output schema exists, the description still lacks context about the operation's scope and potential side effects. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'name' and 'channel', which loosely map to the name and channel_id parameters, but it does not explain the other parameters (reason, guild_id). It adds marginal value over the schema but fails to fully clarify the semantics of all five parameters.

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 states a clear verb ('Edit'), resource ('webhook'), and scope ('name and/or channel'). It also adds a distinguishing note that tokens are never returned, which helps differentiate from get/list/create/delete webhook siblings. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 implies usage for editing a webhook's name or channel, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative webhook tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing the webhook ID, permissions). It is clear enough for a simple case but lacks explicit contextual routing.

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