Update an incoming webhook

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine mutation-scope context: what can be changed (name, pause/resume via enabled) and what cannot (the destination), which is not in the 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?

Two tight sentences with the primary operations front-loaded and the immutability constraint immediately followed by the remedy. 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?

For a 3-param idempotent mutation with no output schema and covering annotations, the description supplies the key mutation semantics and constraint. Minor gaps remain (no explicit sibling routing, no confirmation of return behavior) but nothing critical for correct invocation.

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 33% (only incomingWebhookId is documented in-schema), so the description carries the load for the other two. It explains name as rename and gives concrete semantics for enabled (`enabled: false` = pause, resume), adding meaning beyond the bare boolean type.

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 a specific verb+resource: rename, pause, or resume an incoming webhook. It is clearly scoped to incoming webhooks, but it never names the sibling update_webhook (for regular webhooks), so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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 a clear when-not condition (the destination cannot change; create another one), implicitly routing to create_incoming_webhook. It does not explicitly name alternatives or note that only name/enabled may be modified versus other webhook properties.

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