edubase_patch_organization_webhook

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

The description communicates that this is a state-changing operation (enable/disable), which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. It adds no detail beyond that—no information about required permissions, side effects, or the effect of omitting 'active'—so it does not significantly expand on the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though so minimal that it omits context that usage and behavior dimensions would need; as a pure concision matter it is effective.

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 simple three-parameter PATCH, the description plus schema covers the basics, but there is no output schema and no guidance on side effects, when to use, or what happens if 'active' is omitted (it is optional in the schema despite being central to the described operation). The tool is callable but not fully self-explanatory.

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 coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the meaning of 'active' by saying 'enable or disable,' but adds no new semantic detail such as accepted formats, defaults, or which identifiers are used.

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 names a specific action ('Enable or disable') and resource ('a webhook of an organization'), making the core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling webhook tools like post_organization_webhook or delete_organization_webhook, so it stops short of a fully distinguishing statement.

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 about when to use this tool versus the related webhook operations (get/post/delete/trigger). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that PATCH is the modification endpoint. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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