Api webhooks audit sinks update

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Admin-managed', which usefully implies elevated permissions are required, and 'Folder/IAM' hints at the scoping model (folder permissions / IAM), but neither is explained enough to act on. No mention of whether an update replaces or merges the existing sink configuration.

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?

Two short fragments, so nothing is wasted, but the structure is noun-phrase-plus-tag rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. 'Folder/IAM' reads as a cryptic tag rather than an explained constraint.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and an opaque free-form body. The description leaves out the operation semantics, the updatable fields, and the admin/IAM scoping details that 'Admin-managed' and 'Folder/IAM' only gesture at. It is not enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 says nothing about either parameter. The body parameter is an unconstrained object with no documented properties, so an agent has no way to know which fields (URL, secret, event filters, enabled flag) can be set. The description does not compensate for this gap.

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 precisely ('audit-log forwarding destinations', kind=AUDIT_SINK), which is more than the name alone gives, but it never states the operation. An agent reading only the description cannot tell whether this creates, replaces, or modifies a sink. The 'update' verb exists only in the tool name.

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 indication of when to use this versus the sibling partial_update (PATCH-style) or create/destroy tools. The 'Admin-managed' phrase hints at a privileged audience but gives no workflow guidance or prerequisites for calling it.

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