directus_update_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully communicates the deprecated status and migration path, but fails to disclose mutation risks, permission requirements, or whether updates are partial (patch) or full (replace) operations.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. The deprecation warning and alternative are front-loaded. Minor deduction for the '[UNIFIED]' metadata tag which adds no semantic value for the agent.

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?

Minimum viable for a deprecated tool: the critical information (use Flows instead) is present. However, given the 0% schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description should have explained the parameters or at least referenced what webhook properties can be modified.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description completely fails to compensate. It provides no explanation for 'site' (instance identifier?), 'id' (webhook ID?), or 'data' (which fields are updateable?), leaving all three required parameters undocumented.

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 'Update webhook settings' with a specific verb and resource. The [DEPRECATED] tag distinguishes this from active alternatives like directus_create_flow. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise metadata, and it doesn't specify which webhook settings can be updated.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: 'Use Flows instead in Directus 10+' clearly states when NOT to use this tool and names the preferred alternative. This is exactly what agents need to avoid using deprecated functionality.

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