update_webhook

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates an existing webhook, giving no information about partial vs. full replacement, idempotency, required authentication, error behavior for non-existent IDs, or side effects. This is insufficient for an API 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 a single concise sentence that directly states the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the essential information is front-loaded. It is appropriately minimal for a tool whose details are documented in the schema.

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 an update operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse. It fails to clarify whether the update is a partial patch or full replacement, which parameters are optional, or what the response contains. The presence of sibling CRUD tools makes this gap more impactful, as agents need to know when and how to update 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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, and no extra context like default values or update semantics is provided.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('webhook'), and the distinguishing qualifier ('existing... by ID'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like create_webhook (new) and delete_webhook (removal) without ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description implies the webhook must already exist, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions (e.g., 'use create_webhook for new webhooks'). An agent has to infer usage context from the word 'existing' alone.

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