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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the useful constraint that the webhook must be owned and active, but it does not describe side effects such as creating a new delivery attempt or duplicate delivery behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase carries meaning: replay, owned active webhook, and original event ID.

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 simple two-parameter action with no output schema, this description covers the essential constraints needed to invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe the response or failure modes, but those are not critical for basic invocation.

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 input schema provides only names and string-length constraints, with 0% descriptive coverage. The description clarifies that event_id is the original event ID and that webhook_id must reference an owned active webhook, but it does not add further format, lookup, or prerequisite details.

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 ('replay'), a clear resource (an owned active webhook), and the identifying key (original event ID). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_webhook, revoke_webhook, and get_webhook_deliveries.

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 usage: you can replay a previously existing event to a webhook that is owned and active. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like get_events or get_webhook_deliveries, nor when not to use it.

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