hookbase_update_destination

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, whether changes are reversible, rate limits beyond the parameter, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the essential purpose.

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 complexity (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations. For a tool that modifies configurations with many options, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it correctly and safely.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's details (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'auth_type' and 'auth_config'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('existing destination configuration'), which provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'destination' is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'hookbase_update_route' or 'hookbase_update_source' beyond the resource name. The purpose is clear but vague about the domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing destination ID), compare to sibling tools like 'hookbase_create_destination' or 'hookbase_test_destination', or specify contexts where updates are appropriate. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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