Update a webhook endpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the confirm=true gate, the scope of possible impact (delivery, audience membership, published data, irreversible state), and the secret-handling behavior (responses redacted, new signing secrets written only to a private local file).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and immediately followed by the highest-risk consequences and the confirm requirement. No filler or repetition, though the secret sentences could be tightened slightly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the required confirm flag, the blast radius of the change, and secret handling. It is nearly complete, with the only gap being explicit routing against the secret-rotation siblings.

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 70%, so the schema already documents the notable parameters (events replacement semantics, status enum, confirm, payload_file). The description reinforces the confirm requirement but adds little syntactic or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the 3 baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a webhook endpoint'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings like rotate_webhook_secret or revoke_previous_webhook_secret, which also mutate the signing-secret side of an endpoint.

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?

The description supplies an actionable precondition ('Requires confirm=true') and warns that the operation may affect delivery, audience membership, and published data. It stops short of saying when to choose this tool versus rotate_webhook_secret or create_webhook_endpoint, leaving usage largely implied.

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