update_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior, which is key. It does not mention error handling, permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but for a simple update tool, the level is adequate.

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 concise (three sentences plus bullet points). It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, partial update) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key usage scenarios. It could include more about error conditions or prerequisites, but it is sufficient for an update tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description highlights updating settings and is_active, but adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify format or usage for each parameter.

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 it updates an existing webhook's configuration. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook, delete_webhook, etc., by specifying the action (update) and the target (existing 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 explicitly lists when to use: changing URL, method, headers, enabling/disabling. It also notes partial update behavior ('omitted fields remain unchanged'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like create_webhook for new webhooks.

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