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

With annotations declaring non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, the description still adds real value beyond them: the required webhooks.write scope, the one-time return of the signing secret, and the absence of automatic retries. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from the annotation block.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, permission, secret handling, retry policy), front-loaded with the core action. No filler.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers permission requirements, the one-time secret return (substituting for a return-value spec), and the retry stance. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully constrains 'url' to a public HTTPS endpoint and 'events' to supported event types, but it never enumerates the accepted events or explains format limits on the URL. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a project webhook') plus the scoping constraint (supported events, public HTTPS endpoint), which distinguishes it from devtune_list_webhooks, devtune_delete_webhook, and devtune_rotate_webhook_secret. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for calling: the endpoint must be public HTTPS, the events must be supported, and the caller needs webhooks.write. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., rotate_webhook_secret when a secret already exists), so it stops short of 5.

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