Update a webhook endpoint

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the lower bar applies; the description usefully adds the write scope and endpointId sourcing. However, it never states the partial-update contract — whether omitted fields are preserved or whether at least one of url/eventTypes/isActive must be sent — which is the key behavioral question for a mutation with only endpointId required.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the action plus affected fields lead. The permission note and ID-source hint follow, each earning its place.

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 four-parameter idempotent update with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and ID acquisition, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the partial-update / minimum-field requirement, which is material but narrow.

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 only 25%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it merely echoes the parameter names (url, eventTypes, isActive) without format or semantics detail. It adds no meaning beyond the schema for URL (https-only), eventTypes (empty means none, already documented), or the all-optional constraint. Baseline-adjacent value only.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (change) and enumerates the mutable surface: URL, event types, and the isActive toggle. That cleanly separates it from create_webhook, delete_webhook, and get_webhook_health without needing the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

"Needs webhooks:write" states the required scope, and pointing to the dashboard or the webhook health tool tells the agent where to obtain the mandatory endpointId. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or statement of what happens if no fields are supplied, so it is context without exclusions.

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