update_webhook_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it changes the real production account and requires double-gating, which is good transparency. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., whether update is partial or full replacement) or error states.

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?

The description is concise with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by a warning and HTTP method. It's efficient with no redundant sentences, though it could be more structured by listing parameters.

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 simple update tool, the description provides the purpose and safety guardrails, but omits parameter explanations and return value (no output schema). It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain any parameters. Only the 'confirm' parameter is implicitly mentioned in the warning, but without semantic context. Other parameters (url, events, authorization_header, rule_id) are left undefined.

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 clearly states 'Update a webhook rule,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook_rule and delete_webhook_rule, and provides the HTTP method PATCH, reinforcing the purpose.

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 description warns about affecting production and mentions double-gating requirements (DROPSCAN_ALLOW_WRITES=1 and confirm=true), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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