ecp_git_webhook_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Review each command carefully before confirming' hints that this mutates persistent deploy-webhook state and warrants caution, which is some added context. However, it does not disclose whether changes are reversible, what exactly gets overwritten, whether authorization/permissions are required, or what happens to fields not specified. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the safety reminder is appended. Every clause earns its place. It loses a point only because it is so brief that it omits substantive detail it might otherwise convey — but as written, it is well-structured and economical.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine the expected format of app_id (string/number ambiguity), the role of provider as a gate on available providers, the semantics of the commands objects, or what the call returns. For a mutation tool of this complexity, the description should do considerably more.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It names two of five parameters ('branch filter' and 'commands') but leaves app_id, provider, and confirm unexplained. It also does not clarify the structure of the commands array items (title vs. command) despite the schema defining nested objects with a required command field. Meaning beyond the schema is thin for most parameters.

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 ('Update'), a resource ('an app's deploy-webhook'), and the targeted fields ('branch filter and/or commands'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling webhook tools (create, get, delete, rotate_secret) by its modifying nature. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it does not explicitly name or contrast itself against webhook_create or webhook_get, leaving some differentiation implicit.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say 'use this when a webhook already exists' nor name webhook_create as the alternative for new webhooks. The only usage-adjacent advice is 'Review each command carefully before confirming,' which is a safety instruction rather than selection guidance. An agent has no explicit exclusions or conditions to route on.

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