clio_update_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through an API endpoint with JWT/tenant/company scope, which is generic and likely shared by all Clio tools. It does not disclose what happens during the update (e.g., idempotency, field mutability, side effects, error conditions).

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 brief (two sentences plus args) and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, it could be more informative without being verbose—the routing information is likely redundant for an agent that already knows how API calls work.

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 it is a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema that is not described, the description fails to provide essential context about the update operation, such as which webhook properties can be modified, the effects of the update, or required permissions. The agent is left guessing.

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 schema has one parameter 'arguments' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which slightly clarifies the type but does not specify what keys or values are expected. For a mutation tool with a single opaquely named parameter, this is insufficient.

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 identifies the tool as 'update_webhook' connector operation, but does not explicitly state that it updates an existing webhook in Clio. The name clarifies the action, but the description lacks specificity. Sibling tools like clio_create_webhook and clio_delete_webhook are differentiated by name only.

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?

No guidance on when to use update_webhook versus create or delete. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The agent receives no help in deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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