update_webhook_subscription

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool updates an existing subscription and avoids recreation, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacement, any permission requirements, side effects, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition of schema details.

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 tool has a moderate complexity with no output schema and no annotations. The description adequately states the tool's purpose and lists changeable fields, but it lacks details about partial update semantics, returned data, or error conditions. Given the schema covers parameters, the description provides a minimal but acceptable context, though gaps remain.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description adds synonyms like 'endpoint URL' for uri and 'included fields' for includeFields, which slightly aids comprehension but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 the action ('Update an existing webhook subscription') and lists the specific fields that can be changed (endpoint URL, filters, included fields, metafield namespaces). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook_subscription, delete_webhook_subscription, and get_webhook_subscription, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'without recreating the subscription' implies that this tool should be used over recreating, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create or delete, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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