ls_update_webhook

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

Description adds important context beyond annotations: warns that setting secret rotates signing secret, breaks signature verification, and is treated as destructive (rate-limited, audited). Annotations have destructiveHint=false, contradicting the description's explicit statement.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains critical behavioral nuance. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose and main behavioral nuance, but lacks mention of return value or success response. Given no output schema, description could be more complete (e.g., 'returns the updated webhook object'). Also, idempotentHint=true is present in annotations, but description doesn't reinforce that.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds extra meaning for the 'secret' parameter by explaining its side effects, which is valuable beyond 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?

Clear verb 'update' and resource 'webhook', with specific fields listed (URL, events, secret). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook and 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?

Implies usage for modifying existing webhooks, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs other webhook tools or alternatives. The note about destructive behavior when setting secret provides some context but not direct guidance.

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