Gitea: Update webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the target fields — it does not say whether null/default parameters leave existing values untouched or clear them, nor how the webhook secret is handled, which matters greatly for a destructive mutation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is internal noise that adds no meaning for an agent, but otherwise the structure is 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?

For a 9-parameter destructive mutation with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, this one-liner is far too thin. An agent cannot determine partial-update semantics, required identity fields, or the effect on unset parameters before invoking it.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "Configuration, events, or active status" loosely maps to url/content_type/secret, events, and active, but leaves webhook_id, site, owner, repo, and the null-means-unchanged semantics completely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing webhook") plus the scope of what can change (configuration, events, active status). It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like gitea_create_webhook or gitea_test_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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over gitea_create_webhook, gitea_delete_webhook, or gitea_test_webhook, and no stated prerequisites such as required permissions or admin scope. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.

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