update_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update a webhook' gives no information about what the operation actually does: whether it's a partial or complete update, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it conveyed sufficient information. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose statement), it lacks the necessary detail to be truly helpful.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about the operation's behavior, parameters, usage context, or expected outcomes. The agent would have to guess everything about how to use this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters (1 required, 5 optional), the description provides zero information about any parameters. It doesn't mention that 'webhook_id' is required, nor does it explain what 'name', 'url', 'events', 'description', or 'secret' parameters represent or how they affect the update operation. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Update a webhook' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what aspects of a webhook can be updated or what the operation entails. While it identifies the resource (webhook), it lacks the verb specificity needed for clear differentiation from sibling tools like 'create_webhook' or 'delete_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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing webhook ID), when this should be used instead of creating or deleting webhooks, or any contextual constraints. With multiple sibling webhook tools available, this omission is particularly problematic.

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