tickerbot_patch_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that `enabled` toggles without losing match-state, that trigger/channel are immutable by design, and that unknown fields return 400 rather than being silently ignored – all substantive behavioral details not visible in the schema.

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: a front-loaded purpose, an explicit immutability caveat, and an error-behavior note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 patch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, editable fields, immutable constraints, and error behavior. It does not explicitly describe the response payload or state partial-update semantics (omitted fields unchanged), which is a minor gap given the otherwise rich context.

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 100% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the editable fields and adds a minor nuance about `enabled` preserving match-state, but does not materially enhance parameter semantics beyond the 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 opens with 'Edit a webhook in place' – a specific verb and resource – and enumerates the editable fields (`name`, `cadence`, `target_url`, `enabled`). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `tickerbot_create_webhook` and `tickerbot_delete_webhook` by signaling in-place modification.

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?

It explicitly states that trigger and channel are immutable and directs users to delete and re-create for those changes. It also points to `tickerbot_enable_webhook` as the alternative for re-enabling with match-state clearing, giving clear when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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