taiga_webhooks_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Partial' discloses PATCH-like behavior, but it fails to mention required ID, permission/auth needs, side effects, or response behavior—significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words, earning credit for conciseness. However, it is under-specified, providing only the bare action and partial-update signal without additional structured context.

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?

Given four parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation. It lacks field semantics, usage conditions, and behavioral details, making it only minimally viable.

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 only 25% (only 'id' has a description). The description adds no parameter-level detail for key, url, or name, failing to compensate for the sparse schema. The agent must infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('webhook'), and 'partial' indicates PATCH semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling webhook tools like create, get, delete, and test, though it omits which fields can be updated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus webhooks_create or webhooks_delete. It does not mention that an existing webhook ID is required or that this tool is for modifying existing webhooks rather than creating new ones.

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