update_mailbox_webhook

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

Discloses the critical behavioral trait that 'Events is a full replacement, not a merge', which prevents accidental loss of events. With no annotations, the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It does not mention other aspects like whether URL validation occurs or if changes are reversible, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences: first states the action and scope, second adds the key constraint 'At least one field required' and the full-replacement behavior of events. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers essential information for a straightforward update mutation: what is updated, that events is a full replacement, and that at least one field is required. Missing details like the expected response format (likely success/failure) and prerequisites (e.g., webhook must exist). However, for a simple tool, this is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters and their meanings. The description reinforces that events is a full replacement, but this is already in the schema ('full replacement'). It adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, aligning with baseline 3.

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 action 'Update a webhook's URL and/or events' identifying the resource (webhook) and specific fields. The 'at least one field required' and 'Events is a full replacement, not a merge' further specify scope. Distinguishes from sibling tools like register_mailbox_webhook (create) and delete_mailbox_webhook (delete).

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?

Provides the constraint 'At least one field required' which tells the agent that not all fields are mandatory. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like register_mailbox_webhook for creation or delete_mailbox_webhook for deletion, leaving context implied.

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