Update webhook

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

Annotations already establish idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying partial-update semantics and that 'types replaces the whole list', which is critical for correct invocation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the most important behavioral caveat about partial updates and list replacement is stated compactly.

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 3-parameter tool with fully documented schema and adequate annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it changes, and how the update behaves. No output schema exists, so not describing the return value is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that omitted parameters are preserved ('Pass only what should change') and by reinforcing that the types parameter is a full replacement, which is useful behavioral guidance beyond field names.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing webhook', then names the exact mutable parts (URL and event types). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_webhook, list_webhooks, and delete_webhook without needing schema inspection.

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 clearly targets an existing webhook needing changes, and 'Pass only what should change' conveys partial-update usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'existing webhook' framing plus sibling tool names makes the intended context unambiguous.

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