tiendanube_update_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., immediate impact on active integrations), required permissions, or what happens on invalid input. The description focuses on purpose and use cases but lacks necessary 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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines action, second gives specific use cases, third emphasizes importance. No fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity (3 scalar params, no output schema), the description covers essential context: purpose, use cases, and what fields can be updated. However, it omits behavioral details like success/failure responses or validation, which leaves minor gaps in completeness.

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 describes all three parameters (webhook_id, url, event) with clear descriptions and an enum for event. The description only reiterates that the tool updates 'endpoint URL and event type', adding no extra meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this tool modifies existing webhook configuration, including endpoint URL and event type. It provides specific use cases like changing integration endpoints and updating event subscriptions, effectively distinguishing it from sibling create/get/list tools.

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 this tool ('changing integration endpoints, updating event subscriptions, fixing broken webhook URLs, adapting to system changes'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or what alternatives exist, such as creating a new webhook instead.

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