webex_update_webhook

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether this is a partial update (omitted fields preserved) or a replacement, whether updates are reversible, whether changing the secret invalidates the old one, whether auth/permissions are required, or what the response contains. For a no-annotation mutation tool touching secrets and event subscriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 words are technically concise with zero waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: there is no front-loaded scope statement, no constraints, and nothing for the agent to act on beyond the name. It earns no credit for structure because no structure exists.

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 8 parameters, one required identifier, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should carry substantial explanatory weight. It instead leaves the agent to infer update semantics, required permissions, side effects on secret/status changes, and return behavior entirely from the schema field descriptions.

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 one of the 8 parameters already has an inline description ('New name', 'New signature secret', 'New POST URL', etc.), which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes no additional meaning — for instance, it does not explain the active/inactive semantics of status, the event/filter relationship, or format expectations for targetUrl.

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 is the bare verb+resource 'Update webhook,' which is enough to separate it from webex_create_webhook, webex_get_webhook, and webex_delete_webhook by name alone. But it adds nothing about what aspects of a webhook are updatable or what the operation semantically does (partial patch vs. full replace). It is technically specific yet functionally near-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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of delete/create, no prerequisites such as needing the webhookId from webex_list_webhooks, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the tool name and schema.

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