update_mailbox_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses critical behavior: 'Events is a full replacement, not a merge' and 'At least one field required'. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as whether the update is immediate, confirms side effects, or error conditions. With no annotations, some gaps remain.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and adding crucial details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or excessive text.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and key behavioral details. It could mention return values or side effects, but for a simple update tool, it is mostly complete. Sibling tools are similar, so the context is cohesive.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, but the description adds value by stating 'At least one field required' (not in schema) and reinforcing 'full replacement' for events. This clarifies constraints beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 (mailbox webhook), lists updatable fields (URL and/or events), and includes important constraints (at least one field required, events full replacement). This distinguishes it 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?

The description implies usage for updating an existing webhook's URL or events, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like register_mailbox_webhook (for creation) or get_mailbox_webhook (for reading). The constraint 'at least one field required' is helpful, but no comparative guidance is provided.

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