Update webhook

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

With annotations already marking this as mutable, non-read-only, idempotent, and destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: only included fields are changed, omitted fields are preserved, and null clears the description. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two tightly written sentences carry the essential semantics: partial update behavior and the null-clearing special case. There is no filler, duplicated title content, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 a heavily documented schema and safety-related annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks a return-value description, but there is no output schema and the missing details are not critical for calling the tool correctly.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds cross-parameter semantics by clarifying partial-update behavior, which is not inferable from individual property descriptions. This meaningfully helps an agent understand that omitted fields are not reset.

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 'Partially update a webhook', which names a specific verb, resource, and update semantics. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like mail_createWebhookV1, mail_deleteWebhookV1, and mail_getWebhookV1.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to modify an existing webhook. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or point to alternatives such as create or delete. The usage context is clear but not fully articulated.

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