Api webhooks audit sinks partial update

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds only domain context (admin-managed audit-log forwarding, kind=AUDIT_SINK) and does not explain partial-update semantics, which fields may be modified, auth requirements beyond the vague "admin-managed", or side effects.

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 brief and front-loads the resource identity, but it is written as two cryptic fragments. "Folder/IAM" is unexplained and does not clearly earn its place.

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?

For a partial-update mutation with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is substantially incomplete. It gives enough context to identify the resource type but not enough to safely understand or invoke the update operation.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the id or body parameters. It does not explain what the body may contain or how the required id identifies an audit sink.

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 identifies the resource as admin-managed audit-log forwarding destinations tagged kind=AUDIT_SINK, which helps distinguish it from generic webhook endpoints. However, it never states the actual operation (partial update) or differentiates this PATCH behavior from sibling tools such as update, create, destroy, or replay. The fragment "Folder/IAM" is also too cryptic to clarify scope.

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 the many sibling audit-sink tools, especially update vs partial_update, create, destroy, list, or replay. The description gives no preconditions, exclusions, or selection cues.

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