set_webhook_destination_enabled

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

The description goes well beyond the idempotentHint annotation by disclosing that this is a mutating operation, that it persists the change, that confirm=true is required, and that without confirmation the call is a no-op returning success=false. This gives the agent the exact safety-critical behavior needed to invoke it correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core action and confirm requirement, then provides mutation context, sibling alternatives, and parameter details in a clear order. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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 simple setter with complete schema coverage and an idempotency annotation, the description includes the essential behavioral details: persistence, the confirm guard, no-op behavior, and relationship to add/delete tools. It does not describe the success response shape, but with no output schema declared, the provided return behavior note is likely sufficient.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The Args section in the description mostly repeats the schema descriptions verbatim and adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 a specific action ('Enable or pause a webhook destination') and names the exact resource and state it modifies. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by noting that create_webhook_destination and delete_webhook_destination handle addition and removal, while this tool only changes the enabled flag.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: to set the enabled flag on an existing webhook destination. It explicitly routes the agent to create_webhook_destination for adding and delete_webhook_destination for removing, but it does not mention testing or listing alternatives, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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