pfm_update_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'and/or' partial-update capability, but does not disclose permissions, idempotency, error conditions, return values, or what 'update' means operationally (e.g., whether missing fields are left unchanged). This is a mutation tool with minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It conveys the essential purpose and scope efficiently.

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 simple update tool with a comprehensive input schema, but no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the primary function but lacks guidance on partial-update behavior, required permissions, or expected response. It is minimally viable but leaves room for more context.

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 100%, so the schema already defines id, url, and event_types with descriptions and an enum. The description adds little beyond confirming these are the updatable fields; the 'and/or' phrasing adds slight semantic value about independence of updates, but not enough to exceed the baseline.

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 states a clear action ('Update') on a specific resource ('a webhook') with the specific updatable aspects ('URL and/or subscribed event types'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like create_webhook, get_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?

The description implies usage for modifying an existing webhook, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use create_webhook instead) nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It's enough to infer the primary use case.

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