move_upsert_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the 'Create or update' wording aligns with these and adds only the explicit upsert concept. The description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects on existing subscriptions, credential handling, or failure modes. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, grammatically simple sentence with the action and object front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

The tool has six parameters, an output schema, and useful annotations, so the short description is not entirely responsible for context. Still, the description does not mention required parameters, the role of uid in updating, or the optional nature of events/secret. The schema partially fills these gaps, but the description itself is somewhat sparse for an upsert operation.

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 67%, with clear descriptions for uid, url, events, and secret. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already handles most semantics. The two undocumented optional fields (metadata, description) are self-explanatory, so the lack of compensation in the description is acceptable.

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 states a specific verb ('Create or update'), a resource ('webhook endpoint'), and scope ('for this client'). It clearly captures the upsert functionality and, since no sibling tool targets webhooks, it effectively differentiates the tool from its siblings.

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 intended usage is implied from the description: use it to create or update webhook endpoints. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. There are no sibling webhook tools, so the ambiguity is lower, but guidance beyond the core function is absent.

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