Update Webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses that at least one field must be supplied. It says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, whether the update is partial or replacement, reversibility, or the consequence of changing the URL on in-flight deliveries. This is a mutation tool and the safety/effect profile is essentially undisclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then identification, then the precondition. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

The schema is rich and covers parameter meaning, so the description only needs to supply mutation behavior, which it does not. For an annotated-free write tool with no output schema, an agent still lacks information about permissions, side effects, and failure modes. Adequate but with a clear behavioral gap.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the ID-or-name identification and the events/all_events interaction. The description repeats the ID-or-name point and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource ("Update an existing webhook") and its siblings (create/get/list/delete-webhook) make the scope unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, but the naming pattern is clear enough that an agent can select it.

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?

"Update an existing webhook" plus "At least one field must be provided" implies when to use it and a precondition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer create-webhook vs delete-webhook, or what to do if the webhook doesn't exist. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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