Update Webhook Subscription

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

With destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true already declared, the description usefully adds delivery behavior (a POST to hookUrl with the related payload) and states that reactivation does not replay missed deliveries. However, it never says whether omitted body fields are preserved or cleared on update, which is the key risk for a destructive partial-update tool.

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?

Bold section headers (Delivery, Filters) make the content scannable and the guidance is reasonably front-loaded. The opening duplicated sentence is pure waste and could be cut, but the rest of the text is dense and 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 nested-body update tool with no output schema, it covers delivery mechanism, filter variability, and the describe_webhook_event pre-step well. It omits whether the update is a partial merge or full replacement of the subscription object, and it references an `active` field the schema does not define, leaving a real ambiguity for the caller.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents id, type, hookUrl, and filter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning about filter matching being event-dependent, but its explanation of `active` describes a field that does not appear in the input schema, which muddies rather than clarifies parameter semantics.

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 opening two sentences are a tautology, restating the title and name ('Update Webhook Subscription. Updates an existing webhook subscription.') without adding scope details. The verb+resource pair is specific enough that an agent knows it mutates an existing subscription, but nothing distinguishes it from create_webhook_subscription, get_webhook_subscription, or delete_webhook_subscription beyond the verb in the name.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite: call describe_webhook_event with the event type first to get the filter schema and payload format, and repeats that inside the body description. It also says filter fields depend on the selected event type. It lacks explicit when-to-use versus create/get/delete siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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