update_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but gives no information about side effects, permissions required, idempotency, errors, or consequences. For a mutation tool with zero annotation support, this is a severe 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?

The description is extremely short (5 words), which might seem concise, but it is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. There is no structure or front-loading of essential information. For a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation, this level of brevity is inadequate.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely insufficient. An agent would have no idea what fields can be updated, whether url and events are optional, or what the response might be. The description provides essentially no useful context for calling the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. Yet the description mentions no parameters, fields, or requirements. With 4 parameters (id, url, events, is_active), the description entirely fails to clarify their meanings or usage.

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 endpoint' essentially restates the tool name, adding only the word 'endpoint'. It names the verb and resource but doesn't provide any distinguishing detail beyond the name itself. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_webhook or create_webhook beyond the action verb, which is already implied by the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Without any context, an agent cannot determine if update_webhook is the right choice versus other webhook operations or even unrelated tools.

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