webhook_update_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only declares 'Write operation.' It says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (the schema's nullable-with-null-default parameters make this genuinely ambiguous), whether updates are reversible, or what permissions are required.

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?

Two short sentences, correctly front-loaded with the action and the write-operation warning, and the rule_id hint is secondary. Nothing wasteful.

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, but for a write tool with zero annotation coverage the partial-update semantics (null default means ignore vs. clear) and permission requirements remain unstated. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 every one of the 5 parameters is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a webhook routing rule'), which clearly distinguishes it from webhook_create_rule and webhook_delete_rule. It does not, however, differentiate against other update_* siblings or describe the scope of the update.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite pointer for obtaining rule_id ('To find rule_id: webhook_list_rules'), which is useful but is dependency resolution rather than when-to-use guidance. No conditions, alternatives (e.g., create vs. update), or exclusions are given.

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