Update a webhook

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that 'eventTypes replaces the existing list,' which is a non-obvious destructive/overwrite behavior. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict them.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical replacement behavior is called out in the second sentence.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering destructive behavior and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the important fields and the key replace behavior, though it could have explicitly noted that omitted optional fields are left unchanged.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains endpoint, description, and eventTypes, and clarifies the replacement semantics for eventTypes. However, it does not mention the required webhookId parameter or its role as the identifier.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and names the resource (a webhook) and the mutable attributes (endpoint, description, eventTypes). It clearly conveys this is an update operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create_webhook or delete_webhook beyond the verb.

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 intended use is implied: change an existing webhook's settings. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus create_webhook or delete_webhook, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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