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

Rich disclosure well beyond the annotations: a test event is POSTed first and the webhook is saved only on a 2xx answer, non-Slack payloads are signed and verified via X-SimpleDock-Signature, signingSecret is returned only at creation, and locations:write/Admin is required. The annotations (openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent) are consistent with this and the description amplifies rather than repeats them.

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?

One dense, front-loaded paragraph: the mutation-and-test semantics come first, then payload signing, then constraints and auth. Every clause is load-bearing except the minor restatement of the empty-array defaults; nothing is padded.

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 5-param mutation with no output schema, it covers what an agent needs: return shape ({ webhookId, signingSecret, test }), side effects, auth scope, and the fact that no lifecycle management exists over MCP. Nothing material is left open.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description clears that by adding a cross-parameter constraint the schema cannot express (ZAPIER/SLACK require hooks.zapier.com / hooks.slack.com URLs, all URLs must be https://). It does re-state the "empty = every event/location" defaults already present in the schema property descriptions, which caps it below 5.

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?

"Send appointment events to a URL" is a precise verb+resource, and the description immediately qualifies scope (Pro plan, https-only, per-kind URL requirements). No sibling tool in the list does webhook registration, so the agent can place it instantly.

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?

It states explicit when-not guidance: "Listing, editing, and deleting webhooks happen in Settings → Integrations, not over MCP," which stops the agent hunting for read/update/delete siblings. It also spells out the prerequisite conditions (scope locations:write, Admin role, Pro) and the kind-specific host requirements that gate a valid call.

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