update-webhook

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds the PATCH method and the webhooks:write scope, which indicate a mutating operation with required authorization. It does not mention whether only supplied fields are updated, validation rules, or side effects, but for a partial-update CRUD tool the method and scope are meaningful context.

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 14-word sentence that front-loads the operation and includes the HTTP endpoint and required scope. It contains no filler and is easy to parse.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 17% parameter coverage, the description is too thin: it leaves five optional parameters unexplained and gives no indication of the response shape. The endpoint and scope help, but an agent still cannot confidently know what values to supply for events, filters, or isActive. A more complete description would at least summarize the updatable fields.

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 only 17%: only id has a description ('Webhook id'), while url, events, filters, isActive, and description are undocumented in both schema and description. The description provides no meaning for the optional mutable fields, so an agent must infer their semantics. This is a significant gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 names a clear verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('webhook endpoint'), and pins the HTTP method and path (PATCH /api/public/webhooks/{id}). This distinguishes it from sibling create/get/delete webhook operations.

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 explicit statement about when to use this tool versus create-webhook or delete-webhook, or that an existing webhook must already exist. The verb 'Update' and PATCH method imply modification of an existing endpoint, but no alternatives or exclusions are spelled out.

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