Frihet MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that updates are partial ('Only the provided fields will be changed'), which clarifies the tool's behavior not covered by annotations like idempotentHint. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are consistent with the description's update action, with no contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the key information in the first sentence. The bilingual repetition adds slight redundancy but doesn't significantly detract from clarity. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters), annotations provide good behavioral hints, and schema coverage is complete. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values or error cases. It's adequate but has gaps in fully preparing an agent for invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional semantic details about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'events' array or 'secret' field usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 resource ('existing webhook configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_webhook' or 'delete_webhook', though the verb 'Update' implies it modifies existing resources rather than creating or deleting them.

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 by stating 'Only the provided fields will be changed,' suggesting partial updates, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_webhook' or 'delete_webhook'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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