Update webhook

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutation without destruction. The description adds behavioral context by listing specific non-destructive update operations, which goes beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the key actions (rename, change avatar, move). No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotation coverage, the description lacks information about required permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains. It covers the update actions but omits operational 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 coverage is 60%, with 3 of 5 parameters described. The description maps actions to parameters (rename -> name, change avatar -> avatar_url, move -> channel), adding semantic value beyond the schema. However, it does not cover the webhook or guild parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: renaming a webhook, changing its avatar, or moving it to another channel. These specific actions differentiate it from sibling tools like create_webhook, delete_webhook, or send_webhook_message.

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 (when you need to update a webhook) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_webhook for deletion). No exclusions or context are given.

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