codivupload-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified parameters (partial vs full updates), error conditions, or rate limits. It provides only the basic action without operational context.

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 at just three words, which is appropriately brief for a tool with well-documented parameters in the schema. However, it's arguably too terse - while it states the core action, it could benefit from one additional sentence about context or usage without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address the mutation's safety profile, expected response format, error handling, or how it differs from related webhook operations. The agent would need to infer too much about this tool's behavior from the minimal description alone.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Update Webhook Endpoint' clearly indicates a modification action on a webhook resource, which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects are updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'updatepost' or 'deletewebhook' - it simply states the basic function without differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createwebhook', 'deletewebhook', or 'listwebhooks'. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing webhook ID) or contextual factors that would determine when this specific update operation is appropriate versus creating a new webhook or deleting an existing one.

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