Update Webhook

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false; the description corroborates idempotency and adds non-obvious behavior — partial-update semantics, the failure-counter reset on resume, and the public-HTTPS URL constraint. It does not spell out what 'destructive' covers (e.g. dropping subscriptions when events is replaced), leaving one gap.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the change semantics front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the name/title.

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?

With no output schema, 4 parameters, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the mutation semantics, status transitions, and URL constraints an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, e.g. the behavior when events is replaced or omitted.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning beyond the schema: the ACTIVE/DISABLED transition effects (pause vs. resume and the failure-counter clearing) and a pointer to create_webhook's URL rules.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a webhook endpoint') and immediately clarifies the partial-update semantics ('Only the supplied fields change'), which separates it from create_webhook/delete_webhook in the sibling list.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance for the status field (DISABLED to pause, ACTIVE to resume) and references create_webhook as the source of URL rules. It does not explicitly rule out or route to adjacent siblings like rotate_webhook_secret, test_webhook, or resend_webhook, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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