update_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It effectively discloses non-obvious traits: unset fields remain untouched, empty arrays are ignored, and is_active=false disables rather than deletes. It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but the most critical quirks are covered. A slightly higher score would require even more detail, but this is already strong.

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 concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides necessary operational details. Each clause adds value, covering partial updates, disable-vs-delete, and the empty-array caveat without unnecessary words.

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 tool with several subtle behaviors and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It addresses the most likely user questions (how to update selectively, disable, and avoid the empty-array pitfall). It does not mention that subscription_id must reference an existing webhook, but that is implied by the tool's nature and the required parameter. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning by explaining that events=[] and filing_types=[] are treated as 'no change' and that is_active=false disables the hook. However, it leaves url, description, and subscription_id to inference, though those are relatively self-explanatory. The partial-update behavior applies to all parameters, which is useful context.

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 opens with 'Update a webhook subscription,' a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_webhook, get_webhook, and delete_webhook. It also conveys the core semantics of partial updates, reinforcing the purpose.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Pass only the fields you want to change' and 'Use is_active=false to disable a hook without deleting it' directly contrasts with delete_webhook. It also explains when not to use certain values (events=[] is treated as no change) and offers an alternative (use is_active=false), giving clear when/when-not guidance.

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