Update Webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only lists updatable fields but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, what validation rules apply, or what the response contains. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency 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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. The action and the scope of changes are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 schema covers parameter meanings well, but the overall definition lacks critical update context: whether calling with only webhookId is valid, whether omitted fields are left untouched, and what the effect of setting active is. The absence of an output schema and annotations further leaves the result and safety profile unclear.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including webhookId, active, idModel, callbackURL, and description. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond that, such as value formats or constraints, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Update a webhook') and enumerates the specific mutable fields: callback URL, description, model, and active status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook, get_webhook, and delete_webhook without requiring schema inspection.

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 intended usage is implied by the verb 'update' and the sibling context, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. create_webhook or get_webhook, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the webhook already existing. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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