mail_updateWebhookV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates PATCH-like semantics by stating 'partial update' and 'omitted fields retain values'. However, it omits details about authorization requirements, rate limits, side effects, or response format, which are important for an update operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that clearly convey the core behavior and a usage example. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 description covers the essential partial update semantics but lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., webhook must exist), expected response shape (no output schema), and potential errors. Given the complexity of update operations, more context on validation or idempotency would be beneficial, though the core functionality is adequately described.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds value by explaining the partial update behavior (fields omitted unchanged) and how to clear the description, but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Partially update a webhook', specifying the verb (update) and resource (webhook). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list by focusing on partial modification, which is a unique operation among mail webhook tools.

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 explicitly explains that only included fields are changed and omitted fields retain values, guiding the agent to use this for partial updates. It also provides an example for clearing the description. However, it does not mention when a full update or alternative tool (e.g., create or delete) would be more appropriate.

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