shelly_webhook_update

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

Only idempotentHint is annotated, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden; it usefully discloses that updates are audit-logged and that only supplied fields change ('update fields'). It omits permission requirements, whether omitted fields remain untouched (partial vs full replace), and any rate limits or side effects.

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, front-loaded with the operation and identifier, with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 7-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and minimal annotations, the description should say more about how the optional fields behave; the added 'audit-logged' note partially compensates.

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% across 7 parameters, yet the description names only 'id' and the abstract notion of 'fields'. The meanings of name, urls, device, enable, condition, and repeat_period are left entirely to the reader, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 and resource ('Update fields of an existing webhook by id'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools shelly_webhook_create and shelly_webhook_delete, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over shelly_webhook_create, shelly_webhook_delete, or shelly_rpc_write, nor any note about prerequisites or when not to use it. The 'by id' phrase implies the webhook must already exist, but that is the only inferred constraint.

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