Contract Testing: Update Webhook

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation, and the description adds little beyond that: it only says 'update existing webhook's configuration.' It does not clarify whether omitted optional fields are preserved or reset, what happens if the webhook does not exist, or what the response contains.

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 opening sentence is concise and clear, but the description then duplicates the entire parameter list that already exists in the schema. The bullet list adds length without value, so not every part of the description earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with eight parameters and nested objects, the description is too thin: it does not state whether the update is a full replacement or partial update, does not describe the result or errors, and does not connect to sibling tools like get_webhook or create_webhook. The schema covers parameter semantics but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter and its meaning. The description repeats these parameter names and short descriptions but adds no new semantics, validation detail, or guidance beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Update an existing webhook's configuration.' The word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation, and the tool name plus sibling names like create_webhook and delete_webhook reinforce the intended operation.

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 phrase 'existing webhook' implies this tool is for modifying an already-created webhook rather than creating a new one, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention prerequisites such as fetching the webhook first. Usage guidance is implied, not stated.

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