update_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the concrete authorization requirement (`webhooks:write`), which is real value, but says nothing about whether updates are partial or full replacement, or what disabling implies for in-flight deliveries.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the capability statement is front-loaded before the scope requirement. It is perhaps too terse rather than padded, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A mutation tool with five entirely undocumented parameters and no output schema needs more: which fields are optional, whether omitted fields are preserved, and what happens to `events` when supplied. Only the permission requirement is filled in.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails: only `active` is obliquely referenced via 'disable or re-enable'. `url`, `events`, `description` and the required `id` receive no explanation of semantics or constraints.

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 (update) and resource (webhook endpoint) plus the two special modes (disable, re-enable). It is clear against create/delete/list siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over delete_webhook_endpoint, rotate_webhook_secret, or test_webhook_endpoint, nor any prerequisites beyond the scope note. The agent must infer that disabling is the alternative to deletion.

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