update_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and fails it. It does not say whether this is a full replacement or a partial merge, whether the call is reversible, what auth is required, or what happens to event flags not supplied.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler — structurally clean. However it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so brevity here is a symptom rather than a virtue.

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 mutation tool with a large nested events payload, zero annotation coverage, no output schema and no parameter docs, this single sentence is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently construct the 'data' object or predict the effect of the call from this description.

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% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The nested 'data.events' object alone has ~26 boolean flags whose semantics (which webhook events fire, defaults, null behavior) are nowhere explained, and the 'headers.Authorization' field's role is undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Atualiza um webhook existente'), which cleanly separates it from create_webhook, delete_webhook and get_webhooks. The mention of 'sessão' hints at scope but no explicit sibling routing is given.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the webhook must already exist, permissions needed), and no pointer to alternatives such as create_webhook or delete_webhook. The reader must infer everything from the word 'existente'.

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