ls_update_webhook

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds concrete detail: setting secret rotates the signing secret, breaks signature verification on the receiver until updated, and is rate-limited and audited. This goes well beyond the boolean annotation and gives the agent actionable risk context, with no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the primary action is front-loaded, followed by a targeted caveat about secret rotation. Every sentence 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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, destructive risk, and rate-limit/audit context. It does not mention what the API returns or the effect of updating url/events, but the schema and annotations fill most gaps, making this very close to fully complete.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that webhookId refers to an existing webhook and explains the behavioral consequence of setting secret. The url and events parameters are already well described in the schema, so the extra semantics are useful but not exhaustive.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing webhook's URL, events, or secret.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like ls_get_webhook, ls_create_webhook, and ls_delete_webhook, and names the exact updatable fields.

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 implies this tool is for modifying an existing webhook, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to choose this over create/delete/get. It provides some situational guidance by noting the destructive nature of setting secret, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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