Update webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses HTTPS-only url constraint, that events replaces rather than appends, and that deactivate=true yields INACTIVE. It omits whether the update is a patch or a full replace for non-events fields and says nothing about permissions/auth.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the mutation surface, then the full-list caveat, then the schema pointer. No filler; each sentence adds a distinct constraint or instruction.

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?

No output schema exists, but this is a mutation whose relevant return info is minimal, and the description points to get_operation_schema for the nested request shape. The remaining gap is whether fields omitted from the webhook object are preserved or cleared — important for a nested-object update.

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 100%, but both parameters are opaque (webhook is an additionalProperties object with no field-level detail), so the baseline of 3 is exceeded by the description naming url, events, and deactivate and their semantics. It still defers the exact shape to get_operation_schema("UpdateWebhook").

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 and resource and enumerates exactly what can change: url (HTTPS only), subscribed events, and deactivate=true to switch to INACTIVE. It also distinguishes the read path by naming get_webhook, so an agent can separate this from create_webhook/get_webhook/delete_webhook.

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?

Gives concrete when-and-how guidance: read with get_webhook first, then send existing events plus the new one; use deactivate=true to turn off. It stops short of explicitly contrasting update vs create vs delete, but the workflow condition is clear enough to act on.

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