update_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses PATCH semantics and the constraint on metadata filters. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether updates affect active callbacks) or required permissions. Still, it is transparent about the update behavior.

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 two sentences, efficiently conveying scope, constraints, and update semantics without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool has 9 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers what can be updated, what cannot, and the update semantics. It does not need to explain return values as the output schema exists. Could mention that the webhook must exist, but that is implied.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description groups parameters into categories (authentication, signature, custom headers) but does not add significant detail beyond the schema. The mention of 'custom headers' may be slightly misleading as no such parameter exists in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 technical parameters of a webhook subscription, specifies which parameters (authentication, signature, custom headers), and explicitly notes what cannot be changed (metadata filters), with a directive to delete and recreate instead. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook and delete_webhook.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it clarifies that metadata filters cannot be changed and directs users to delete and recreate the webhook for such changes. It also specifies PATCH semantics, so only provided fields are modified.

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