Webhooks Update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive idempotent write. The description adds useful context by stating the required scope and API version, but it does not explain partial-update behavior, what happens to fields not provided, or any rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then supplies endpoint, required scope, and API version in compact lines. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

For a mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description provides the endpoint, required authorization scope, and API version. It omits details about partial update semantics and additional_fields merging, but those are documented in the schema. Overall complete enough for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents id, url, event, and additional_fields. The description mentions that URL or event can be changed, which aligns with the schema, but adds no format or semantic detail beyond it. The baseline score of 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Change a webhook's URL or event.' This clearly distinguishes the update operation from sibling tools like webhooks_create, webhooks_delete, webhooks_get, and webhooks_list. The HTTP method and endpoint reinforce the purpose without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Change a webhook's URL or event' and the endpoint PUT /webhooks/{id}, which tells an agent this operates on an existing webhook. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus webhooks_create or webhooks_delete, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the required scope. Adequate but missing explicit routing guidance.

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