update_repo_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only conveys that this is a mutation operation on an existing resource, but it does not describe side effects, required permissions, partial update semantics, or what happens if the webhook does not exist. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 a single, concise sentence: 'Update an existing repository webhook.' Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Despite the schema being fairly rich (6 parameters, nested config object), the description is minimal and does not provide behavioral context, return value expectations, or preconditions. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the operation's impact.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description adds no extra parameter context, but since the schema covers it, a baseline score of 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 action ('Update'), the resource ('repository webhook'), and the qualification ('existing'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, list, delete, and org-scoped webhook tools. It is specific and unambiguous.

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: use this tool to update an existing repository webhook, as opposed to creating a new one or managing org webhooks. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the webhook needing to exist. The guidance is only implied by the verb and resource.

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