Update a webhook.

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. However, the description adds nothing on top of that: it doesn't say whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to omitted fields like events or post_url, whether confirmation is needed, or what the side effects of changing the post_url are.

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 four-word sentence with zero waste, but it is not concise so much as under-specified, carrying no information beyond the title. Brevity here reflects a missing specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 8 parameters, a nested payload object, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent gets no information about update semantics, confirmation requirements, or what state the webhook ends up in.

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 8 parameters including the nested payload object and the confirm flag, establishing the baseline of 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, such as which fields are actually updatable or how payload interacts with the top-level body flags.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 create_webhook, delete_webhook, or get_webhook, and no mention of prerequisites such as the required confirmation. The description provides no usage context whatsoever.

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