webhooks_update

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

With annotations already declaring non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: partial-update merge semantics, the lossy full-replacement of the events list, and an HTTPS validation constraint that will cause calls to fail. It stays silent on auth/permission requirements, what the response contains, and whether a test delivery is triggered.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct rule; the partial-update scope leads and the destructive events caveat follows immediately. Zero filler.

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 6-parameter partial-update mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essential facts (scope, merge behavior, replacement caveat, HTTPS requirement) are all present. Slightly short on what a successful response looks like and whether the webhook secret or delivery state is affected.

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%, so both url and events already document the HTTPS requirement and the replacement semantics the description restates. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Partially update an existing webhook endpoint" gives a specific verb (partial update) and resource (webhook endpoint) with the update semantics baked in, which cleanly separates it from webhooks_create and webhooks_get in the sibling list. An agent can decide to call this without opening the schema.

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?

It states the condition that selects this behavior — only provided fields change — and warns that events is a full replacement rather than additive, which is exactly the trap an agent would fall into. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., use webhooks_create for new endpoints), leaving that routing to the naming.

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