update_webhook

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior, effect of null secret (removes signature), re-enabling resets failure counter, and 404 for other accounts' webhooks. Lacks details on idempotency or rate limits, but covers key behavioral traits well.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with core action and HTTP verb, and includes key behavioral notes without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, description explains partial update, special behaviors, ownership, and id source. Lacks mention of response format, but overall sufficient for agent to use 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 covers all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying that only specified fields change, and provides special behaviors for 'secret' and 'enabled'. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it partially updates an outbound event webhook, specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, lists the editable fields, and distinguishes from create/delete/tool siblings. The purpose 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?

Description explains when to use (update webhook) and ownership restriction, but does not explicitly guide when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like test_webhook or retry_failed_webhook. Implicitly suggests using list_webhooks first to get the id.

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