update_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state how updates behave - e.g., whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, whether events replaces the full subscription list or appends to it, or whether endpoint updates propagate immediately. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in behavioral clarity.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It names two key fields and the action. However, it's slightly under-specified given the complexity of the tool (3 updateable fields, one being an event array). Concise but could add a sentence about 'status' without being verbose.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only 25% parameter documentation combined. Given this context, the description should compensate substantially. It names endpoint and events but misses status, provides no guidance on update semantics, no prerequisites, and no behavioral expectations for a mutation operation. A moderate-complexity mutation tool deserves more than this.

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 only 25% (only webhook_id has a description in the schema). The description mentions endpoint and event subscriptions, providing some meaning for those parameters, but it omits the 'status' field entirely and doesn't explain the semantics of the events array (full replacement vs append). With low schema coverage (under 50%), the description should compensate but only partially does.

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 clearly states what it does: 'Update a webhook's endpoint or event subscriptions' with a specific verb (Update) and resource (webhook). It mentions two of the three updateable fields. However, it doesn't mention updating 'status' (active/inactive), which is a third field the schema exposes. Still, the core purpose is clear and distinguishable from siblings like create_webhook and delete_webhook.

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 alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the webhook must exist, or that webhook_id is required). No indication of which fields are mutually exclusive or combinable, or whether partial updates are supported. The description gives no usage context whatsoever.

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