修改 webhook

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (POST), the mutating nature ('修改'), and the unified response envelope (code 200/msg/data with an example '修改成功'), which is genuinely useful beyond the schema. But it does not state whether omited optional fields (httpMethod/headers/body) are overwritten or preserved on update, nor how errors for non-existent ids behave — material for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, then req/response in logical order. The only wase is duplicating the full webhookType enum list verbatim from the schema, which is redundant but aids quick scanning.

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 moderate-complexity tool with 8 flat parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the request contract, required vs optional grouping, conditional custom-type fields, and the response format with a success example, compensating for the absent output schema. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (update semantics for untouched fields, error responses), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description's parameter content — required set and the custom-type-only conditionals — largely restates what the schema already says per-param (e.g., '仅自定义类型需要'). It adds organizational value but no new meaning beyond condensing the requirements.

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 operation: '修改 webhook 配置' (modify webhook configuration) with the exact endpoint 'POST /open/webhook/edit'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling webhook tools (open_webhook_add/list/detail/delete) by verb and resource.

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 context is implied rather than stated: the required 'id' parameter and the verb '修改' signal an existing-record edit, and the sibling set makes the create/read/delete alternatives inferable. However, the description never explicitly says when to choose this over open_webhook_add, nor states conditions or exclusions.

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