webhooks_modify

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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the returned webhook record lacks a token, and 'name' remains raw creator-controlled data while 'untrusted_name' is a fenced copy. This alerts the agent to security considerations. No contradiction with annotations; readonly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false align with an update operation.

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 highly concise and well-structured with Purpose, When to use, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given a simple modification tool with an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, a key usage scenario, and return behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with webhooks_modify_with_token, but the provided information is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation in most cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds a small amount of extra meaning, e.g., channel_id is bot-auth only. This is helpful but not crucial; most parameter meaning comes from the schema itself.

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 the tool updates a webhook, specifying the concrete actions (rename, re-avatar, move to a different channel). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the channel_id change is only available on the bot-auth path, which differentiates from webhooks_modify_with_token.

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?

A 'When to use' section is present, giving a specific scenario: changing the channel. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use the token-based sibling. The guidance is clear for one case but lacks comprehensive when-to-use/not-use coverage.

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