Sửa cấu hình webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool updates fields like URL, secret, and active status, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacement, what happens if the config_id is invalid, whether secret keys are returned or write-only, or what effects the update has on live webhook delivery.

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 compact and front-loaded, using a parenthetical to list the main updatable aspects and a bilingual sentence to reinforce the purpose. The duplication between Vietnamese and English costs some efficiency, but overall the description is appropriately brief for its clarity.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not mention the required config_id parameter, the available auth types, payload formats, or what the tool returns upon success. An agent would struggle to know exactly how to construct a valid update request without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 9 undocumented parameters. It provides some mapping for webhook_url, secret_key, and is_active, but it omits important parameters like config_id, auth_type, api_key_name, payload_format, and virtual_account_id, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for those fields.

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 tool updates an existing webhook config and gives concrete examples of what can be changed (URL, secret, enable/disable). It distinguishes itself from create/list/delete webhook siblings through the explicit 'update' verb, though it could more explicitly separate itself from the delete/test sibling operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like monapay_create_webhook or monapay_delete_webhook. The verb 'update' implies modifying an existing webhook, but no context is given about prerequisites, such as needing an existing config_id, or when creation would be more appropriate.

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