put_webhook

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, is destructive, and is not idempotent. The description notes that partial updates are supported, which is useful, but it doesn't elaborate on the destructive nature, such as whether updating can overwrite existing settings (e.g., removing events) or the consequences of changing the secret. It also doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits. Given the annotations, the description adds some value but could do more.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the purpose and key capability in two sentences. However, the first sentence is repetitive ('Update a webhook. Update a webhook using its unique identifier.') which reduces efficiency. The second sentence about partial updates is valuable and concise.

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 complexity of a webhook update tool with nested body parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the required path parameter (webhookId), the full set of modifiable fields, or any behavioral nuances beyond partial updates. With no annotations fully covering the destructive and non-idempotent nature, the description should provide more context to safely invoke the tool.

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% for the top-level parameters, but the body parameters have descriptions within the schema. The description lists some updatable fields (name, URL, events) but omits others (secret, enabled, project_id) and doesn't clarify the format or constraints (e.g., max lengths, event identifiers). It adds minimal meaning beyond 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 action (update) and the resource (webhook), and identifies the fields that can be modified (name, URL, events). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like post_webhook or delete_webhook beyond the obvious verb difference, and it omits mention of other modifiable fields present in the schema (secret, enabled, project_id), which could cause confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as post_webhook (for creation) or delete_webhook. It mentions partial updates but doesn't explain when a full update might be required or any prerequisites or side effects. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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