update_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for disclosure. It reveals a critical behavioral trait: 'this replaces the entire webhook configuration' and states that all fields are required. This is essential for an agent to understand the destructive nature of the operation.

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 consists of two sentences that get straight to the point: the action, the requirements, and the recommended workflow. There is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 moderately complex tool with six required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and behavioral caveats. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but these are less critical for an update operation.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little per-parameter detail. The global note about all fields being required is helpful but is also implicit in the schema's required array.

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 clearly states the action ('Update an existing webhook') and lists the specific fields being modified ('URL, secret, and event subscriptions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook, get_webhook, and delete_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 explicitly advises using get_webhook first to retrieve current values before modifying, providing a clear sequential workflow. It implies this tool is for existing webhooks only, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_webhook.

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