Update a webhook endpoint (re-enabling resets its health)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true and openWorld=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavioral context: re-enabling an endpoint that was auto-disabled after repeated failures resets its health, which is a state transition the agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of saying what happens if the URL is changed (e.g., re-verification) or whether omitted fields are left untouched.

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 the surprising behavioral fact (health reset on re-enable) front-loaded in the title and repeated usefully in context. The title is duplicated verbatim as the first line of the description, which is a small redundancy rather than a real cost.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the definition establishes purpose and the one non-obvious side effect, which is the most important gap filled. It still leaves the agent guessing about partial-update semantics, whether URL changes require re-verification, and what the response contains after an update.

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 only 20% (just the id field is documented), so the description carries real weight and does name url, events, description and status. However, it adds no semantics beyond the field names — nothing on whether enabled_events replaces the whole list, what the '*' wildcard means, or what disabled vs enabled implies for delivery. Naming fields is minimal compensation for a 5-param schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update a webhook endpoint') and enumerates the mutable surface: URL, events, description, and enable/disable status. It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_webhook_endpoint or test_webhook_endpoint by virtue of being an in-place mutation, though it never names those siblings 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?

It gives an implied when-to-use by listing the fields that can be changed, and adds a specific scenario for re-enabling an auto-disabled endpoint. There are no explicit exclusions or routing to alternatives (delete_webhook_endpoint, rotate_webhook_secret, test_webhook_endpoint), and no stated prerequisites such as the endpoint existing or being owned by the caller.

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