Update PhishFort Webhook

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds only the unhelpful detail 'after approval' without explaining the approval process, idempotency, side effects, or authentication requirements. For a tool with a complex approval workflow, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 concise sentence, but it sacrifices informative content for brevity. It front-loads the update action but omits essential details, making it less efficient than a longer but more complete description.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 5 required, approval workflow, and an output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to mention what the tool outputs, what fields can be updated, or the approval process. The agent would need to inspect the schema extensively to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning the description provides no information about any of the 10 parameters (5 required). The unique approval-related parameters (approval_id, approval_phrase, request_digest) are not explained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose. This is a critical failure for correct tool invocation.

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 'Update webhook subscription after approval,' which clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (webhook subscription), and hints at a prerequisite (approval). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like phishfort_create_webhook or phishfort_delete_webhook, nor does it specify which webhook fields can be updated.

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 phrase 'after approval' implies a precondition but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete). There are no statements about when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., existing webhook), or exclusions. With many sibling tools, this lack of guidance is a significant gap.

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