Api webhooks endpoints partial update

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

Annotations already state readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds nothing about what a partial update changes or preserves. Worse, it advertises create/list/retrieve/delete behavior that this operation does not perform, so it adds noise rather than disclosure.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so it is not verbose, but every word is boilerplate that does not describe this operation; brevity earned by conveying nothing is not effective conciseness.

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?

A 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail about semantics needs the description to explain the partial-update contract and the meaning of `body`. None of that is present, so an agent cannot safely invoke it from the definition alone.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about `id` (required identifier of the endpoint) or `body` (the arbitrary object of fields to patch). This is the case where the description was obligated to compensate and completely failed to.

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 never says what this specific tool does; it lists "create, list, retrieve, update, and delete" while the tool name and schema (only `id` + `body`, both optional-update shaped) indicate a PATCH-style partial update on webhook endpoints. This actively misdescribes scope and gives no basis for distinguishing it from the sibling list/create/retrieve/destroy tools.

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 when-to-use, no preconditions, no mention of alternatives such as `..._update` (full update) or `..._retrieve`. An agent reading this would have no idea it should prefer this tool only for partial field changes to an existing webhook endpoint.

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