beel_patch_webhook_subscription

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: `events` replaces the entire list (not additive), the signing secret is untouched, and `active=false` stops deliveries without discarding history. No contradictions 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?

Three concise paragraphs, each carrying distinct information: the partial-update behavior, the replacement semantics, and the secret/active considerations. The endpoint line is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the non-obvious behaviors crucial for correct use: partial updates, list replacement, secret rotation, and the non-destructive nature of disabling. It omits `account_relationship` from the field list (though schema covers it) and doesn't mention response format, but for a mutation without output schema this is adequate.

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 descriptions are rich (67% coverage) and cover all three parameters, including nested body fields. The description adds one crucial semantic — `events` replaces the whole list — but omits the `account_relationship` field (also updatable) from its enumeration. Since the schema covers most details, a baseline 3 with slight credit 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 opens with a specific verb (Updates) and resource (webhook subscription), enumerates the exact fields affected (`url`, `events`, `active`), and clarifies partial update semantics. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create/delete webhook subscriptions.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (updating fields of an existing subscription) and routes the user to the separate secret-rotation endpoint for that concern. It also details the consequences of setting `active` to `false`, giving concrete usage context.

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