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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations: the signing secret is shown only once on create and rotate, delete is permanent and also wipes delivery history, and 'me'/no_agent resolution rules govern the agent parameter. The remaining gap is that get, test, and list/messages behaviors and response shapes are not described, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Six sentences, each carrying distinct information, front-loaded with the purpose before special-casing destroy/permanence and the one-time secret. Some phrasing is compressed to the point of terseness ("a handle must be owned"), but there is 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?

Covers safety-critical behavior and the two most confusing parameters for a seven-action mutation tool with no output schema. It is still incomplete for an agent needing to call `test` or `create` correctly, since the required URL, eventTypes filtering semantics, and per-action required fields are never described.

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?

With schema description coverage at 14% the description does real work for `agent` (me, owned handle, no_agent fallback) and `sinceMinutes` (1–43200, newest 100), plus implied use of `id` for endpoint filtering. However `url`, `eventTypes`, and `description` receive no semantic explanation, so nearly half the parameters are left to the bare types.

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 ("Manage this account's webhook endpoints") and then enumerates the action semantics of create/rotate/delete/messages so the agent knows what the tool actually covers. It also names the sibling boundary explicitly ("Declare artifact triggers through super_publish"), which separates it from the many other super_* tools.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ("Mutations require write scope") and redirects artifact-trigger work to super_publish rather than doing it here. It stops short of explaining when to use get vs test or when messages is preferable to fetching a single endpoint, so exclusions are only partially covered.

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