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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the event is signed, it is tried exactly once with no retries (reinforcing the non-idempotent hint), it returns delivery outcome, HTTP status, error and elapsed time, and it silently re-enables a disabled endpoint that answers 2xx. That last side effect is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by the retry policy, the side effect, and the precondition. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back, and it covers side effects and availability constraints for a simple 2-parameter tool. The only gap is the undocumented webhook_id parameter.

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 only 50% and the description says nothing about either parameter. workspace_id is documented in-schema, but webhook_id has no description anywhere, so the agent gets no help on what a valid webhook_id is or where to obtain one.

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 ('sends a signed webhook.test event to the endpoint') and makes clear this is the test path rather than create_webhook/list_webhooks. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling webhook tool 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?

The word 'now' plus 'Not available in an unclaimed sandbox' tells the agent this is an immediate, live-fire test with a stated precondition. It lacks an explicit pointer to alternatives (e.g. create_webhook for setting one up), but the context is clear enough to select it correctly.

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