growsurf_update_campaign_webhook

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

Annotations already cover idempotent and destructive hints. The description adds valuable context: only provided fields are updated (partial update), secret is write-only and never returned, and campaignId targets a specific program with a fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. These behaviors go beyond the annotations, making the tool's behavior clear.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct, critical detail (partial update, secret behavior, campaignId targeting). Every word earns its place.

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 an update operation, the description covers the essential semantics: partial updates, secret handling, and campaign targeting. The existence of an output schema likely covers return values, and the agent can infer the need for an existing webhook. Minor gaps like error cases are not critical for a basic call, so it is fairly complete.

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 33% (only secret and campaignId have descriptions). The description adds meaning for webhookId (primary) and campaignId (fallback), and reiterates secret's write-only nature, but it does not explain events, isEnabled, or payloadUrl. This partially compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves several parameters 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?

Clearly states the operation: 'Update a webhook' with the resource (webhook) and identifier (by id). It differentiates from siblings like create, delete, list, and test by using the verb 'update' and specifying the target. The note that webhookId can be 'primary' adds specificity.

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 implies usage for modifying existing webhooks but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It explains the partial-update behavior and campaignId fallback, which are useful context, but it does not guide the agent toward create/delete/list alternatives. This is average, not poor.

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