tokportal_update_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. The name implies mutation, but beyond that, the agent gains no insight into the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise at four words. It is efficient and front-loaded. However, for a tool with nested parameters and multiple siblings, the brevity may come at the cost of completeness, but it does not contain unnecessary content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested body object, no output schema, many siblings), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return values, error handling, partial update behavior, or any constraints. The agent is left with minimal context to use the tool correctly.

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% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it merely restates the tool's purpose. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 'Update a webhook endpoint' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is very generic. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'create_webhook_endpoint' or 'delete_webhook_endpoint', which are also present in the sibling list. The name itself is explanatory, but the description adds no additional specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., updating an existing endpoint vs creating a new one), or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools, this omission hinders correct tool selection.

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