Webhooks: Update a webhook object

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely new context: the required user API key header, the exact endpoint, and the non-obvious behavior that text values pass through unchanged in any language while IDs/numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits. It stops short of explaining partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved and whether subscriptions replaces the existing list).

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the operation, endpoint, auth, and body fields appear in order with no filler. The Persian/Arabic digit guidance is arguably server-wide boilerplate that has little bearing on a webhook update, but it is stated briefly and does not bloat the entry.

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 no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it: endpoint, auth header, body fields, and how to pass unlisted keys. The remaining gap is replace-vs-merge semantics for url/subscriptions, which the annotations' idempotentHint=false hints at but never clarifies.

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 url, subscriptions, account_id, webhook_id, and extra_body are all documented in the schema itself. The description only re-lists the body fields (url, subscriptions) and reiterates that unlisted fields go through extra_body, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a webhook object in the account') and even surfaces the exact PATCH endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling webhook tools (gapify_add_webhook, gapify_delete_webhook, gapify_list_webhooks), so an agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Update' plus the PATCH path and the required account_id/webhook_id pair, which signals modifying an existing webhook rather than creating one. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over gapify_add_webhook or what prerequisites must hold (e.g., the webhook must already exist), leaving the choice to inference.

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