lattice_update_webhook

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update' without detailing mutation behavior, such as whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, permission requirements, or if the update is reversible.

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?

A single concise sentence front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to mention the required 'id' parameter, but that is acceptable as the schema carries that info.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters with low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the id requirement, return value, or confirmation of update, making it incomplete for an update operation.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing URL, events, secret, and active as updatable fields. However, it does not explain the events parameter format (JSON array string) or the name parameter, leaving gaps.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'webhook', and enumerates the fields that can be updated: URL, event list, secret, or active flag. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhooks, create_webhook, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_webhook or delete_webhook. There are no when-not instructions, prerequisites, or contextual hints.

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