conduyt_update_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the schema — that reactivating resets the failure count — but says nothing about permissions required, whether unspecified fields are left untouched or cleared (patch vs full replace), or whether changes are reversible.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the side-effect caveat second. Everything present earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes and one important side effect, but omits the partial-update semantics an agent needs to call it safely (does omitting a field clear it?) and any mention of authorization requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, which sets a baseline of 3. The description goes slightly beyond by grouping url/events/isActive as the payload's purpose and clarifying the semantic consequence of flipping isActive, earning a small bump.

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), and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can distinguish it from conduyt_create_webhook and conduyt_delete_webhook. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling boundaries, so it is not a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — 'update' obviously applies to existing webhooks — but the description never says when to prefer this over conduyt_create_webhook or conduyt_delete_webhook, nor does it mention the prerequisite of obtaining an id (e.g. via conduyt_list_webhooks).

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