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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the signing auth token is returned only ONCE and must be stored, and by detailing the two-step destructive confirmation flow with confirmToken. This is critical operational context an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint alone.

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 what the tool does, followed by the one-time token warning and the confirmation flow. No filler and nothing important buried.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors (event delivery, one-time token, destructive confirm flow). The main gap is undocumented parameters, which is captured under parameter semantics rather than 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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It adds a meaningful constraint for webhookUrl ('public https URL') and reiterates the events enum, but leaves site, name, validity, and maxRetries completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Registers) and resource (a public https URL to receive article events) and enumerates the exact event types it will deliver. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling webhook tools like list_webhooks, update_webhook, delete_webhook, test_webhook, and regenerate_webhook_token.

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 the two-step confirmation invocation flow (first call returns summary + confirmToken, second call with confirmToken proceeds), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., use test_webhook to validate, or list_webhooks first), leaving sibling routing implicit.

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