update_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the required permission scope, the immutable agent/environment scope, the need for operator authorization before URL redirects, the concurrency protection via expected_revision, and the retry instruction to reuse the exact idempotency_key and input. This is substantive disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the updatable field list and constraints, then appends permission, scope and idempotency notes. Dense but each clause carries information; the docs URL is a reasonable pointer rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers auth, scope limits, concurrency and idempotency for a mutation tool with 8 parameters. The one unresolved gap is disambiguation from the sibling update_webhook, which the agent needs in order to pick correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds cross-parameter semantics: expected_revision guards against concurrent overwrite, and idempotency_key must be reused identically after an uncertain mutation. That retry/consistency relationship is not fully captured in the per-field schema text.

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?

Starts with a specific verb (Update) plus the resource and enumerates exactly which fields can change (name, URL, events, keyword rules, active/paused status). It also names a required parameter (expected_revision) in the first sentence. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling update_webhook, leaving the agent to guess which update tool applies.

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?

Gives real operating conditions: requires webhook.manage, agent/environment scope cannot be changed, and notifications must not be redirected without operator authorization. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when to prefer this over update_webhook.

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