update_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what can be updated, without explaining side effects (e.g., full overwrite vs partial update), authorization requirements, or whether the updated webhook is returned. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to conveying the purpose, with no wasted or redundant content.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, with fully documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency (e.g., whether the update is partial or full, any error conditions). It is minimum viable but leaves important context for the agent to infer.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds a high-level grouping ('URL, type, or active status') but no additional detail beyond what the schema already states, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'existing webhook', and specifies the updatable fields (URL, type, or active status). It is specific enough to distinguish from create/list/delete webhook siblings, though it does not explicitly mention these alternatives.

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?

The word 'existing' implies that the tool targets already-created webhooks, providing some contextual signal. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_webhook or delete_webhook, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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