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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the webhooks.write scope requirement, the one-time-only return of the signing secret ('store it securely'), and the absence of automatic retries. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling a non-idempotent mutation.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the security/retry caveats follow. Slightly terse on request-shape details but nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (signing secret, once) and key constraints. It leaves out duplicate-URL behavior and error/validation semantics, which are minor gaps here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'public HTTPS endpoint' adds a real constraint on url beyond format:uri, but it omits the 2048-char limit, and 'supported events' is redundant with the enum already in the schema.

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 scope constraints (public HTTPS endpoint, supported events), which is enough to distinguish it from delete_webhook, list_webhooks, and rotate_webhook_secret. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 explains what the tool creates but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointers to the sibling webhook tools (rotate_webhook_secret, delete_webhook, list_webhooks). The 'Requires webhooks.write' line is a prerequisite, not usage selection guidance.

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