github_repos_update_webhook_config_for_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' which implies a write operation, but gives no details on side effects (e.g., overwrite vs. merge, validation behavior, permission requirements, or rate limits). This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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, concise sentence of 44 characters. It is efficient and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, it is extremely brief and could benefit from a bit more detail about what the configuration update entails, without becoming unnecessarily 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what a webhook configuration is, what can be updated, or what the response indicates. The agent would have limited understanding of the tool's full behavior from this 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'hook_id', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, such as what fields the 'body' object expects (e.g., url, content_type, secret). The high coverage does not compensate for the lack of semantic enrichment.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'a webhook configuration for a repository', establishing the core action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like `github_repos_update_webhook`, which also updates webhooks but may target the webhook object itself rather than just the configuration.

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 implies usage: when you need to update a webhook configuration. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like `update_webhook` or `get_webhook_config`, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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