npm_hook_update

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond by explaining the PUT overwrite semantics: the config is completely replaced, so both fields are always written. It also discloses that the returned hook object redacts the secret, which is useful behavioral context not present in annotations. This adds meaningful transparency without contradicting annotations.

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, but both are information-dense and critical. The first sentence states the core behavior and the overwrite warning, and the second clarifies the secret rotation nuance and the redaction detail. No fluff, 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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the overwrite pitfall, and the return redaction. It doesn't mention error cases or auth requirements, but annotations and sibling context (other hook tools) imply standard conditions. Given the simplicity and complete schema coverage, this is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter meaning. The description adds the crucial nuance that secret is always written and that endpoint is required, but these are also reflected in schema descriptions ('Always written; pass the existing secret...' and 'required — the PUT replaces the whole config'). The description doesn't add significant new parameter semantics beyond what schema provides, so 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 tool's action: replace a webhook's endpoint AND signing secret. It explicitly distinguishes this from merely changing one or the other, and the warning about the overwrite behavior clarifies the tool's unique destructive scope, setting it apart from sibling tools like npm_hook_add or npm_hook_get.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: both endpoint and secret are required, and it warns that passing only the endpoint will rotate the secret unintentionally. It tells the user to supply the current secret if they only intend to change the endpoint, which is a clear conditional instruction. While it doesn't name alternatives explicitly, the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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