Update webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral constraints: URLs must be HTTPS, and setting deactivate=true switches the webhook to INACTIVE. However, it does not explain other side effects, partial update behavior, or how deactivate=false behaves, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences long, immediately states the tool's purpose, lists key capabilities, and ends with a useful pointer to the operation schema. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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?

This is an update tool with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers updateable fields, the HTTPS constraint, and the deactivate behavior, and points to get_operation_schema for the request shape. However, it omits any mention of the response/return value or side effects, so it is not as complete as a fully documented tool.

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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters, the webhook object's schema is generic (a reference to UpdateWebhookRequest). The description adds concrete examples of updatable fields (url, events, deactivate) and a validation rule (HTTPS only), which gives the agent useful semantic detail beyond the schema's placeholder.

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 opens with 'Update an existing webhook' — a clear verb and resource. It then specifies the updateable aspects: url (HTTPS only), subscribed events, and deactivate=true to switch to INACTIVE, which distinguishes it from create/delete/get/validate webhook tools.

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 description clearly establishes the use case: modifying an existing webhook, and even provides a pointer to get_operation_schema for the exact request shape. However, it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like create_webhook or delete_webhook, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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