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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: returning a secret hook URL, firing the rig on POST with the body as input, consuming the daily run budget with fail-closed behavior, a 6-fires/minute rate limit, security consequences of URL exposure, revocation via delete, and a 10-hook account cap. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense yet efficient, with every sentence adding necessary operational or security detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and output, then systematically covers budget, rate limiting, security, auth, and limits. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states the key return value (a secret hook URL) and fully explains the hook's behavior, side effects, limits, and security model. An agent has enough context to correctly invoke the tool and handle the result without additional documentation.

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 already covers both parameters fully (rig_id as UUID of the saved rig, rig_name as optional display name), so the description does not need to add much. The description adds useful context about how the POST body becomes run input, but this is behavioral rather than parameter-specific. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a WEBHOOK TRIGGER for a SAVED rig.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like hook_delete, hook_list, and hook_pause by focusing on the creation action and the resulting secret URL.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when an external system needs to trigger a saved rig via HTTP POST without polling. It also states a key prerequisite (logged-in identity with Bearer JWT). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the webhook-specific context and required auth make the usage scenario unambiguous.

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