Sửa cấu hình webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'update webhook config' and lists some fields. It does not mention whether updates are partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, idempotency, error conditions, or permissions needed.

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 short and front-loads the action and key fields. The bilingual duplication is somewhat redundant but not harmful. It earns a high score for brevity, though it sacrifices substance.

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?

A 9-parameter update operation with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema requires far more context. The description omits semantics for most parameters, return values, and behavioral caveats, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 0% across 9 parameters. The description names only three fields (URL, secret, enable/disable) corresponding to webhook_url, secret_key, and is_active, leaving name, auth_type, api_key_name, payload_format, and virtual_account_id unexplained. It adds minimal semantic value and does not compensate for the empty schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('webhook config'), and enumerates the mutable aspects (URL, secret, enable/disable), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like monapay_create_webhook and monapay_list_webhooks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus create/delete/test webhook operations. The description only restates the operation and gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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