Update Webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly implies a mutating operation and lists mutable fields, but it does not explain partial-update semantics, whether all fields are optional, side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or what response to expect. This is a notable gap 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the updateable attributes in a compact, scannable way. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, full parameter documentation, and clear one-line purpose, the description is nearly complete for selection and invocation. The only meaningful omission is explicit guidance on whether updates are partial or full replacement and whether at least one update field must be supplied, but the schema's optional fields partially cover this.

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 provides full parameter documentation. The description restates those fields in prose ('endpoint URL', 'subscribed events', 'enable/disable') but adds no new constraints, relationships, formats, or examples beyond what the schema offers.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing webhook in Resend') and enumerates the changeable aspects: endpoint URL, subscribed events, and enable/disable status. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create-webhook, get-webhook, list-webhooks, and remove-webhook.

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?

The description establishes the intended scenario—modifying an existing webhook rather than creating, reading, or deleting one. It does not explicitly route to alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose it correctly.

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