Update Webhook

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying what can be updated (URL or active status), but doesn't elaborate on side effects, permissions, or error conditions beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential information and has no redundant phrasing.

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 annotations provide safety and idempotency info, and the schema fully documents parameters, the description is adequate for a basic update tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values or potential errors, leaving some context gaps for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Resource ID' for webhook_id, 'New endpoint URL' for url). The description mentions 'URL or active status', which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond it, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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') and resource ('webhook') with specific attributes ('URL or active status'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_update_face' or 'dual_update_organization' beyond the resource name, which is implied but not stated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_create_webhook' or 'dual_delete_webhook', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing webhook ID. It lacks context about typical use cases or constraints.

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