Contract Testing: Update Webhook

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not reiterate or expand upon. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as whether the update is partial or full replacement, or error handling if the webhook doesn't exist.

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 (one sentence plus a well-formatted parameter list). The parameter list is structured but somewhat redundant given the schema. Still, it is clear and easy to scan.

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?

The description does not mention the return value (e.g., the updated webhook or success status), error conditions, or prerequisites. For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this lack of context reduces 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 description lists parameters with brief descriptions, but the input schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). Therefore, the description adds minimal additional meaning 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('webhook's configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'contract-testing_create_webhook' or 'contract-testing_delete_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not state that this tool should be used when modifying an existing webhook rather than creating a new one. Given the presence of sibling CRUD tools, this omission impacts usability.

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