Update Webhook

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

The annotation openWorldHint signals a real-world mutation, and the description aligns by saying 'update' and 'enable/disable'. It adds useful behavioral context with 'Provide any combination of url, events, enabled', which clarifies partial update semantics – an agent knows unspecified fields remain unchanged. This goes beyond the annotation, though it doesn't disclose validation 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action, states the resource, and lists the modifiable fields. Every word contributes, with no wasted space or repetition of the title/name.

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 simplicity of the tool (4 params, all documented, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool does and partial update flexibility. It doesn't mention return values or error cases, but these are not critical for a straightforward update operation, and the schema and annotations already provide enough context.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions url, events, and enabled, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. 'Any combination' is a slight addition, but the schema already indicates optionality. No extra syntax or constraints are provided.

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 explicitly states the verb 'update', the resource 'webhook', and the specific modifiable fields ('URL/events and/or enable/disable'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook, get_webhook, and verify_webhook_signature.

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?

When to use this tool is implied by its name and purpose (updating an existing webhook), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use this instead of create_webhook for existing webhooks.' This is acceptable but not explicit, so it falls short of a 4.

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