Update webhook

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint, so the description carries the real burden and does so well: enabling clears a failure streak, disabling cancels in-flight deliveries, and the recovery path is named. It also discloses the return shape { endpoint, changed, message }, which no output schema provides.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the mutable surface, then the side effects, then the return shape. Every clause earns its place; no restatement of the name or 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape and the destructive side effect of disabling, which is the highest-risk thing an agent could do here. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 semantics the schema does not: 'enabled' has the side effect of clearing a failure streak, and events is a replace rather than a merge. The null-clears-it behavior for description is already in the schema, so no extra credit there.

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 (change/update) and resource (webhook) and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable: url, events, description, enabled. That field-level enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from create_webhook, delete_webhook, and rotate_webhook_secret without needing to name them.

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?

Makes clear this is the partial-update path and routes the agent to resend_webhook_delivery for restoring canceled deliveries, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use create_webhook to add a new endpoint, use test_webhook to verify), so it lands just below the top.

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