Update Yolfi Webhook Endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'one independent endpoint' scoping fact, but omits partial-update semantics, whether unspecified fields are preserved, and whether the secret or deliveries are affected.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and target front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 6-parameter partial-update mutation with a nested metadataFilters object and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it never mentions filtering behavior or what the call returns, and it leaves the caller to discover metadataFilters from the schema alone. Annotations carry the safety story, so the gap is not severe.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including metadataFilters's nested constraints is documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description restates four of the field names but conspicuously omits metadataFilters, adding little beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (one Yolfi webhook endpoint) and enumerates the mutable fields (name, URL, adapter, enabled). The phrase 'one independent ... endpoint' hints that it targets a single existing record rather than the bulk-style configure sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 on when to use this instead of yolfi_webhooks_configure, rotate_secret, or delete, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., endpoint must already exist, only supplied fields change). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and one-line purpose.

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