update_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it's a partial update and lists updatable fields without rotating secret. However, it omits error scenarios, side effects, or authentication requirements, which could be important for an agent.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key behaviors and constraints are front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, the description covers the core update behavior and constraints. It could mention idempotency or error responses, but is adequate for an update tool.

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 covers 40% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning for 'sender' (account-wide API keys override) and explains that url, enabled, eventTypes are updatable without secret rotation, compensating for the schema's gaps.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'webhook by id', and specifies it's a partial update. It distinguishes from siblings like create_webhook and delete_webhook by noting specific updatable fields.

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 partial updates ('Provide at least one field') and clarifies that the signing secret is not rotated. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context among siblings makes it clear.

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