Update a webhook subscription

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by naming required scopes, OAuth scope, data sensitivity, idempotency key handling, the need to pass confirm: true with rejection on omission, and workspace override behavior. These are concrete operational requirements an agent must follow, and they are not present in the annotations. There is no contradiction with the annotations, which already flag destructive and non-idempotent behavior.

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 front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then proceeds through scopes, idempotency, destructive confirmation, and workspace override in clearly separated lines. Every sentence carries actionable information, though the format is somewhat list-like rather than fully integrated prose.

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 complexity, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the critical safety and execution details: scopes, destructive confirmation, idempotency, and workspace override. It does not describe which subscription fields can be updated, but the input schema exposes the body structure, so the description is largely complete for safe invocation.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats schema-level information for confirm, idempotencyKey, workspaceId, and workspaceSlug without adding much new meaning, and it does not describe the nested body fields such as status, targetUrl, eventTypes, or consumerMetadata.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an outbound webhook subscription.' The endpoint line further pins down the exact operation as a PATCH on a webhook subscription id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling webhook tools for listing, creating, deleting, testing, or replaying deliveries/events.

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 operational prerequisites like required scopes and the destructive confirm requirement, which imply this is for updating an existing subscription. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create, delete, or list. No when-not guidance is given, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name and verb.

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