Update webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false (not destructive), readOnlyHint=false (mutating), and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the 'write-only' HMAC secret context, which is a useful behavioral disclosure—meaning the secret can be set but never read back. However, beyond that, the description doesn't elaborate on side effects such as whether updating triggers immediate delivery testing or whether secret rotation invalidates pending signatures.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that covers both core operations without waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary verb. It earns its place, though it could afford to add one more clause about when to use it.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and only 43% schema coverage, the description carries a heavy burden it only partially meets. It conveys the two distinct operations (update vs secret rotation) but doesn't clarify the idempotency_key parameter behavior, how enabled interacts with other updates, or what a successful response looks like. Adequate for distinguishing from siblings but incomplete for full operation semantics.

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 low at 43%, but the description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. The 'rotate' language implicitly flags hmac_secret as the rotation target, which adds marginal value. However, params like enabled, description, url, and idempotency_key are left entirely to the schema, which doesn't explain their semantics beyond basic type/format. The description could have compensated for the coverage gap but doesn't.

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 a webhook endpoint or rotate its write-only HMAC secret' uses a specific verb (update/rotate) with a clear resource (webhook endpoint). It also highlights the two distinct operations the tool supports, distinguishing it from list_webhooks, create_webhook, and delete_webhook siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings by name.

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 clearly implies this is for modifying an existing webhook, distinct from create/delete/list siblings. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to guidance, nor does it mention that the 'enabled' field can toggle webhook behavior or that inline signature verification uses the secret. No alternatives are named explicitly.

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