update_webhook

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the required authentication scope ('org-level API key') and the constraint that at least one field must be supplied. Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). No contradictions.

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 redundant information. The purpose and key constraints are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds important usage notes. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, parameters, and auth requirement. It does not mention the return value (likely the updated webhook object), but that is somewhat inferred from the sibling get_webhook. Overall, fairly complete for the complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by summarizing what the parameters control (delivery URL, event types, active status) but does not detail each parameter beyond the schema's own descriptions. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 ('a webhook subscription'), and the specific fields that can be modified ('delivery URL', 'event types', 'pause/resume via active'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_webhook, delete_webhook, and get_webhook.

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 provides key usage constraints: 'At least one field must be supplied' and 'Requires an org-level API key.' It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the sibling list makes the context clear. Slight room for improvement by stating when to use over create/delete.

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