update_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the secret is preserved unless rotateSecret is passed, that a rotated secret is 'returned once' (one-time visibility, not re-retrievable), and that delete+recreate has a receiver-breaking side effect. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether url/events replace or merge with existing values.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed immediately by the secret behavior and the alternative routing advice. No filler.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most dangerous behaviors (secret rotation, one-time return) but leaves projectId undocumented and unclear whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 explain parameters itself. It adds real meaning for url, events, and rotateSecret, and id is implied by 'same id', but projectId is never mentioned and no parameter's format or merge semantics are clarified.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Reconfigure'), the resource ('webhook'), and the scope ('in place (same id)'), which cleanly separates it from create_webhook and delete_webhook in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation without reading the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the preference: 'Prefer this over delete+recreate, which breaks the receiver,' giving a when-to-use and a named alternative pattern with a reason. It does not cover when this tool is inappropriate (e.g., non-existent or archived webhooks), so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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