ls_update_webhook

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

Description states that setting secret is destructive (rate-limited, audited), but annotations have destructiveHint: false and idempotentHint: true, directly contradicting the description. Rotating a secret is neither non-destructive nor idempotent.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word serves a function.

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 adequately covers the tool's function and the destructive behavior of secret. However, the contradiction with annotations undermines its reliability for an AI agent, reducing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all params. The description adds crucial context: setting secret rotates the signing secret and is destructive, which the schema lacks. This goes beyond the schema's plain 'New signing secret'.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing webhook's URL, events, or secret,' specifying the verb (update) and resource (webhook) with exact fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ls_create_webhook and ls_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?

The description implies usage for modifying existing webhooks but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion conditions. Context from sibling names (create, delete) partially compensates.

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