updateWebhook

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. However, it gives no information about side effects, whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, or permission requirements, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 extremely short (three words), but it offers no added value over the tool name due to being a restatement. This is under-specification rather than 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to explain update semantics, return values, or required scope. The schema covers parameters, but the tool still lacks essential context for an agent to understand behavior and expected results.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (id, url, event) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficiently detailed to compensate.

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 'Update a webhook' directly restates the tool name 'updateWebhook' with no additional detail, making it a tautology. It does not specify which attributes can be updated or how it relates to sibling tools like createWebhook or getWebhook.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context for updating a webhook. It simply states the action with no usage context.

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