upsert_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a legacy immediate write that bypasses the INFLOW_ENABLE_SAFE_WRITES guard and is high risk. It does not cover auth requirements, reversibility of updates, or create-vs-update semantics (id handling), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the risk/legacy warning and the redirect to set_webhook come before the functional sentence. The bracketed block is dense but every element earns its place, with no 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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing context (legacy status, bypassed safety flag, preferred alternative) while the schema fully covers inputs. Only the create-vs-update behavioral difference and return semantics are left implicit.

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 all four parameters (id, url, events, isActive) are already documented in the schema, including the 'required for updates' note on id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pair and resource ('Create or update a webhook subscription') and immediately names the sibling that supersedes it (set_webhook). An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it relates to the other webhook tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool ('Use set_webhook instead') and flags it as legacy, which is clear when-not guidance. It stops short of saying when, if ever, this tool is still the correct choice, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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