webhooks_modify_with_token

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true), the description discloses the auth requirement (no Bot header), absence of audit_reason on token-auth routes, and the untrusted_name fenced copy for raw creator data. This adds significant behavioral context not present in 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, When to use, Restrictions, Auth, Returns) and every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations provide idempotency/destructive hints, the description covers the critical context: auth method, parameter scope, restrictions, and return value nuances. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description further clarifies that only name and avatar are modifiable, and that channel_id is not accepted, adding semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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+resource: 'Update a webhook (name + avatar only) using its token, no bot auth.' It clearly differentiates from sibling webhooks_modify by stating the token-auth method and scope (name/avatar only).

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 'When to use' section explicitly states the condition (holding token but lacking guild access), and the Restrictions section points to webhooks_modify as the alternative for moving webhooks, providing clear usage guidance.

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