wp_update_custom_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only says the named fields can be updated. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, whether omitted fields are reset, what permissions are needed, or what response is returned.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and places the verb and resource first. It is appropriately compact, though it could add one clause about update semantics without becoming bloated.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is not enough. An agent is missing update semantics, prerequisite information, and any detail on topics/enabled behavior needed for a safe call.

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 only 20%, and the description merely repeats the field names from the schema without adding substantive meaning. It does not explain topics semantics, the effect of enabled=false, or how missing optional fields are handled.

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 ('Update') and resource ('custom MCP webhook'), and lists the affected fields (name, url, topics, enabled). It clearly communicates the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling webhook-update tools such as update_form_webhook or update_woocommerce_webhook.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to update versus create/delete/test a custom webhook, or whether the webhook must already exist. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling set.

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