vk_post_user_9cd9a3ba4e0d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention authentication, raw proxy behavior, and parameter placement, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose effects like whether existing events are replaced or merged, nor does it mention response format or error 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 clear but somewhat repetitive, with 'Update a user-level webhook target' stated twice. It contains several useful details, but could be tightened by removing redundancy.

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 simple proxy tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, body handling, and parameter placement. However, it does not specify the structure of the JSON body for updating events, and it omits any indication of what the response will contain, leaving some ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description adds value by explaining how to pass the JSON body ('Pass the JSON request payload in the optional body field'), that path/query parameters are top-level, and that aliases for camelCase and snake_case are accepted. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 a user-level webhook target' and 'Update the events for a user-level webhook target'. The verb is specific, the resource is identified, and it is distinct from sibling tools that list webhooks or operate on other Vikunja resources.

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 clear context: it is a raw Vikunja REST proxy for a specific endpoint, and it indicates authentication is required. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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