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 behavioral burden. It does disclose mutation semantics and the pause/resume toggle behavior, but says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved, whether filters are replaced or merged, what errors occur for a bad URL or unknown webhookId, or whether changes take effect immediately.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, no filler. The final sentence overlaps modestly with the first (partial update without recreating), but it adds the specific field list, so it earns most of its space.

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 nested mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the pause/resume case well but leaves partial-update semantics, nested filter behavior, and failure modes unexplained. An agent could call it, but would be guessing on merge-vs-replace behavior.

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 coverage is only 40%; the description restates the active flag semantics (already in the schema via the 'active' property description) and names webhookUrl/webhookMethod/filters, adding a little value for the undescribed method param. It says nothing about the nested filters.positions.min/max bounds or the drivers/constructors formats, which are the least documented parts of the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing webhook subscription') and explicitly contrasts itself with delete/recreate workflows, so an agent can separate it from create_webhook, delete_webhook, and get_webhook without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: 'Use active: false to pause delivery, active: true to resume' and frames the tool as a way to change endpoint/method/filters without deleting and recreating. It never names an explicit alternative for secret rotation or new-subscription creation, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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