webhooks.update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to specify whether this is a partial or full replacement update, what happens to unspecified fields, validation rules, or error conditions like attempting to update a non-existent webhook.

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?

Single sentence is appropriately brief and lacks redundancy, but is arguably under-specified given the complexity. It efficiently conveys the basic purpose but wastes the opportunity to front-load critical usage constraints.

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?

Given 4 required parameters with zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an update mutation operation. Missing field descriptions, behavioral details, and error handling guidance.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for all 4 required parameters, yet the description provides no compensatory information about what 'url', 'active', 'eventTypes', or 'id' represent, their formats, or why all four are required for the update.

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 states the basic action (Update) and resource (Ryft webhook endpoint), but lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated. It minimally distinguishes from siblings (webhooks.create/delete/get) by verb choice alone without elaborating on the update scope.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use update versus delete/recreate, or prerequisites such as needing to retrieve the webhook ID via webhooks.get or webhooks.list first. No mention of when updates take effect or idempotency considerations.

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