Sửa cấu hình webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that URL, secret, and enable/disable can be changed, but does not clarify partial-update semantics, required permissions, or handling of omitted fields. With annotations present, this is a modest value-add.

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 very short and front-loads the core action, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. The bilingual form is efficient, yet it leaves critical parameter and usage context unaddressed.

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 a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not identify the required config_id, does not explain the auth_type enum or other fields, and provides no guidance on partial updates or return behavior.

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 must compensate. It mentions only three updatable concepts (webhook_url, secret_key, is_active) out of nine parameters, and omits the required config_id as well as auth_type, api_key_name, payload_format, and virtual_account_id. The compensation is too partial for a 9-parameter schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a webhook config' / 'Cập nhật webhook', and hints at updatable fields (URL, secret, enable/disable). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like monapay_create_webhook, monapay_delete_webhook, or monapay_test_webhook, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only implies that it modifies an existing config, leaving the agent to infer that distinction from the tool name.

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