webhooks_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the mutation semantics (partial update, replacement of events list, HTTPS constraint) which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention whether changes are reversible, auth requirements, or delivery impact on in-flight requests. Decent but not rich.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: states partial-update behavior, discloses the events-replacement gotcha with clear guidance, and flags the HTTPS constraint. Zero waste, well front-loaded.

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 straightforward CRUD-update tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral semantics (partial update, events replacement, HTTPS). Could add auth/permission expectations, but the essentials are present. Complete enough for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly (including the non-additive events semantics and '*' wildcard). The description adds the 'send complete set' emphasis which reinforces the events param, but otherwise does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Partially update an existing webhook endpoint') with explicit semantics that it's a partial update. Distinguishes from webhooks_create/webhooks_delete/webhooks_test siblings through the 'existing webhook endpoint' framing and partial-update specificity.

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?

Describes partial-update behavior and the critical events-replacement caveat ('send the complete desired set each time'). Notes HTTPS requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or contrast with webhooks_create for new endpoints, though the 'existing' qualifier implies it.

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