yougile_update_webhook

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

The description specifies that deletion is a soft-delete, which adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying the nature of the destructive action. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the annotation covers the destructive aspect.

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 that front-loads the purpose and lists key fields with no unnecessary words. It is easily scannable and efficient.

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 straightforward update tool with 5 documented parameters and a destructive hint annotation, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not mention the return value or behavior when the id does not exist, which could be useful context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description merely lists the updatable fields (url, event, disabled, soft-delete) without adding additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action 'Update' with the resource 'webhook' and enumerates the mutable fields (url, event, disabled, soft-delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook and list_webhooks.

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 implies usage by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_webhook or list_webhooks. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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