update_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a webhook, implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of a mutation tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage guidelines, and output details, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper tool 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%, with all 5 parameters clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'webhookId' as the unique identifier, 'status' as the webhook status). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('a webhook in Webex'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_webhook' and 'delete_webhook' by specifying the update operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools (e.g., 'update_room', 'update_person').

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook ID), contrast with 'create_webhook' or 'delete_webhook', or specify typical use cases (e.g., modifying webhook settings after creation).

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