Update webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: HTTPS-only URLs, events being a full replacement list rather than a delta, and deactivate=true switching the webhook to INACTIVE. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or response behavior, but it surfaces the most dangerous semantic trap.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core purpose and the most important semantic trap (events is not a delta) are front-loaded, followed by the schema pointer.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical usage semantics and points to get_operation_schema for the nested request shape. Missing details are mainly auth/permissions and response format, but nothing required for correct invocation is absent.

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 the nested webhook object is opaque (additionalProperties: {}), so the description adds essential meaning by explaining the full-list semantics of events, the deactivate flag, and the HTTPS-only constraint on url. Exact field shapes are deferred to get_operation_schema, which is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource (update an existing webhook) and enumerates the exact fields that can change: url, events, deactivate. It is clearly distinguishable from create_webhook, delete_webhook, and get_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?

It gives explicit operational guidance: read with get_webhook first before adding an event, and call get_operation_schema("UpdateWebhook") for the request shape. It does not explicitly compare against create_webhook or delete_webhook, but the use case is unambiguous from the description.

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