Update webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that updates are partial ('any subset') and introduces the important behavior that endpoints can be auto-disabled and later re-enabled. It does not mention authorization, failure modes, or response shape, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core update purpose and field scope are front-loaded, and the re-enable guidance adds practical value rather than repetition.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably useful but not complete. It captures the main action and one important edge case, but it leaves out failure/error behavior, whether other fields are preserved on partial update, and what the caller should expect after the update.

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 20%, so the description needs to compensate, but the parameter list mostly repeats schema property names. The useful addition is 'any subset', indicating optional partial updates, and the enabled=true behavior. However, it does not explain semantics like what events represent, how the URL is validated, or what the id parameter refers to beyond structured 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 the verb 'Update' and names both the resource ('webhook') and the mutable set of fields ('name, url, events or enabled flag'). It also clarifies the partial-update scope with 'any subset', which distinguishes this from create-webhook and delete-webhook.

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 communicates context: this tool changes an existing webhook and supports partial updates of only the fields provided. The second sentence adds a concrete and valuable use case, re-enabling an auto-disabled webhook after fixing the receiver. It does not explicitly say when to choose update-webhook over create-webhook or list-webhooks, but the intent is clear.

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