beaconed_webhooks_update

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

Annotations already supply idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It adds that this is a PATCH-style modification with the mutable fields, but does not detail side effects, replacement semantics, or delivery impact. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence with the HTTP method and resource, followed by a compact list of updated fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity update operation with a required id and three optional fields, the description plus schema and annotations cover the essentials. No output schema exists, but the absence of a return-value note is not a significant obstacle to invoking the tool 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 schema fully documents id, url, events, and status. The description briefly names three of the mutable parameters but adds no format or enum nuance beyond the schema; baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('webhook subscription') and enumerates the mutable aspects (URL, events, status). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like webhooks_create, webhooks_delete, and webhooks_test without needing to open schemas.

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 endpoint is framed as an update operation on an existing webhook, which is a clear use context and is distinct from create/delete/test siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for choosing it over them, but the context is sufficient for a simple update tool.

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