tokportal_update_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which align with an update operation. However, the description adds no extra context about mutation behavior, such as whether it is a partial or full replacement, or any implications like requiring the endpoint to exist. It does not describe side effects or prerequisites beyond what the annotations imply.

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 sentence, which is very concise and leaves no unnecessary words. It is appropriately wordy for the minimal information it provides, though it could perhaps include a brief note about the body parameter.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, enums, and an optional idempotency key, the description is overly terse. It does not mention that the endpoint must exist or that this is an update operation that might alter delivery behavior. There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining expected outcomes, which it fails to do.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three top-level parameters (id, body, idempotency_key), each with a basic description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance; it only repeats the generic 'update' action. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Update a webhook endpoint.' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, delete, test, and retry webhook endpoints. However, it does not specify which aspects can be updated (e.g., URL, events, enabled), though these are clear from the schema.

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 alternatives. It does not mention that this tool requires an existing endpoint (unlike create) or that it is used to modify an existing endpoint's configuration. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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