put--v3-domains-domain_name-webhooks-webhook_name

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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or response format. It mentions updating a webhook but gives no context about what happens to existing settings or typical outcomes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and resource ('domain webhook'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (only 33% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails beyond the name, provide usage context, or describe behavioral aspects like side effects or authentication needs. For a tool that modifies webhooks, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description doesn't explicitly mention any parameters, but with only 3 parameters total and 33% schema description coverage (only the 'url' parameter has a description), the description doesn't add value beyond the schema. However, since there are only 3 parameters and the schema at least documents 'url' with details about multiple URLs and limits, the baseline is higher. The description's brevity doesn't compensate for the low schema coverage, but the small parameter count keeps it from being lower.

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 'Update domain webhook' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('domain webhook'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of the webhook are updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'post--v3-domains-domain-webhooks' (which likely creates webhooks) or 'get--v3-domains-domain_name-webhooks-webhook_name' (which likely retrieves webhook details).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like the POST version for creation or GET version for retrieval. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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