webhook_update

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive. The description adds context about partial updates and flat body structure, which is helpful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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, dense sentence that conveys all essential information: method, partial update, body structure, and required field constraint. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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?

While the description covers the core behavior and constraints, it omits details about return values or error handling. With no output schema, the agent might need to infer the response format. However, for a PUT update, the behavior is standard enough to be acceptable.

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 89%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds a critical constraint: 'At least one updatable field besides webhook_id is required,' which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the body format (flat), adding value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a webhook (PUT /webhooks/{id}).' It specifies the HTTP method, partial update mechanics, and required fields, distinguishing it from siblings like webhook_create or webhook_delete.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Partial — supply ONLY the fields to change' and 'At least one updatable field besides webhook_id is required.' This instructs the agent on how to call the tool correctly, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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