Api webhooks endpoints update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what part of an endpoint record is replaced, whether the free-form body is merged or overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what is returned.

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?

One short sentence, but it is boilerplate that does not earn its place — it is not front-loaded on the actual operation and its multi-verb enumeration is wasted text for a single-verb tool.

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 mutation tool with an untyped free-form body, 0% parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description supplies none of the information an agent needs to construct a valid update call. The one piece of structured guidance available (annotations) is already machine-readable, so nothing substantive is added.

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% with 2 parameters, and the body is an unconstrained additionalProperties object, so the schema gives the agent almost nothing to work with. The description provides no hint about what fields the body accepts (url, event types, secret, active flag), leaving the required payload shape entirely undocumented.

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 names the resource (webhook endpoints) and reads as generic OpenAPI boilerplate: "API endpoint to create, list, retrieve, update, and delete." It lists five operations for a tool whose name/title claims only update, so an agent cannot tell from the description what this specific tool does or how it differs from the sibling _create/_list/_retrieve/_destroy/_partial_update 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling endpoints_create / endpoints_list / endpoints_destroy tools that actually perform the other operations the description claims. The blanket CRUD phrasing actively encourages the agent to call this tool for reads or deletes it cannot perform.

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