trmnl_webhook_update

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

Annotations already cover write/idempotency/destructive profile, and the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: server-side final stored size and plan limits, deferred application ('accepted data may wait for refresh'), and stream-mode semantics (omitted keys replaced, top-level arrays appended). This is meaningful disclosure not present in the annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler; the stream-mode clarification follows logically. Slightly compressed, but every sentence carries information.

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 6-param mutation with a nested object, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core publishing behavior and merge semantics but omits explanation of several parameters and any return indication. Adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent composing a call.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only partially does: it clarifies uuidEnv usage, mergeStrategy values, and stream-mode interactions, while leaving profile, streamLimit, and maxPayloadBytes completely unmentioned. With 3 of 6 params undocumented anywhere, coverage is substantially incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Publish private-plugin data using its webhook UUID', and enumerates the supported merge modes. An agent can tell this is a write/publish operation distinct from the read-oriented sibling trmnl_webhook_read, though it never names that sibling explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains mergeStrategy modes and payload behavior but never says when to pick this over trmnl_webhook_read or trmnl_get_merge_variables, nor any prerequisites. Enough context to infer the use case, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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