Webform Handler Update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does so well: it discloses the hidden lookup behavior for handler_id (no entity id of its own), that an ambiguous handler id raises an error rather than guessing, and the partial-update semantics of `configuration`. It omits auth/permission requirements and reversibility, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then two tight paragraphs that each add distinct value (lookup semantics, then config merge semantics). No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no coverage, and the description addresses the trickiest parts of a mutation (id resolution and partial config updates). It is nearly complete, missing only the `label` parameter's effect and any permission 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four params: it explains the search/short-circuit role of webform_id, the ownership semantics of handler_id, and the whole-key replacement behavior of configuration. Only `label` is left undocumented.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Update a webform handler') that clearly separates it from the create/delete/list siblings by verb alone. It does not explicitly name any sibling for routing, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 gives operational guidance for the parameters ('Pass webform_id to skip the search'), which implies how to use the tool in the ambiguous case, but it never states when to choose this tool over webform_handler_create or webform_handler_delete. Usage is inferable rather than explicitly framed against alternatives.

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