Update webhook

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals ownership semantics ('Owner only — an endpoint you don't own answers the same 404'), validation behavior ('any other key 400s field_not_editable'), and the response shape including that the secret is never returned. This contextualizes idempotency and mutation without contradicting annotations.

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?

Each sentence carries distinct value – scope, ownership, validation, alternative flow, and return fields. The information is front-loaded with what the tool does, then constraints, then alternative routing, with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description includes the full return shape ({uuid, url, events, active, lastDeliveredAt, lastStatusCode, failureCount, createdAt}) and explicitly notes the secret is never included. Error cases (404, 400) and the create/delete alternative for URL/secret changes make the tool fully usable without extra documentation.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, including events replacement semantics and active behavior. The description adds cross-parameter meaning: at least one of events/active is required, extra keys are rejected, and URL/secret are not editable here. This goes beyond the schema's required list.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource – 'Change which events a webhook endpoint receives, or pause/resume delivery' – and explicitly states what is not touched (URL/secret), distinguishing it from create/delete/list siblings. It is neither vague nor tautological.

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?

States when to use it (edit events or active) and provides the alternative for URL/secret changes: 'delete with tribeunal_delete_webhook and re-create with tribeunal_create_webhook instead.' It also gives the required-input constraint ('Pass events and/or active; at least one is required') and error behaviors that guide invocation.

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