npm_hook_update

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

The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the returned hook object has the secret redacted, which is not covered by annotations. However, the phrase 'and/or secret' conflicts with the schema's required fields (endpoint and secret are both required), leaving ambiguity about whether partial updates are possible. This inconsistency undermines transparency about how the update actually behaves.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and immediately identify the updateable fields. It includes a valuable note about secret redaction without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

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 is adequate given the complete schema and annotations, but it lacks key context such as prerequisites (e.g., the hook must exist), side effects of updating the secret or endpoint, and clarity on partial versus full replacement. The redaction note is helpful, but the schema-description mismatch leaves a meaningful gap in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (Hook ID, New signing secret, New HTTPS URL), giving 100% coverage. The description adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema states, only hinting at 'and/or' which is potentially misleading given the required fields.

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 'Update a webhook's endpoint and/or secret' clearly identifies the specific action (update) and resource (webhook), and explicitly names the fields that can be changed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_hook_add, npm_hook_list, and npm_hook_remove.

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 an existing webhook, as indicated by 'Update' and the required id field in the schema, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. It could have named npm_hook_add for creation or npm_hook_remove for deletion.

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