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

Adds context beyond the annotations: auth/permission requirements, the openWorld precondition that the remote receiver must be live, and that rotate_secret cancels pending deliveries. It does not cover failure modes or whether an existing webhook is replaced when one is already registered.

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 short sentences, the core action front-loaded, then prerequisites, then secret handling. Every sentence carries information; there is no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers prerequisites and the return secret's lifecycle. Minor gaps remain around replacement/overwrite behavior when a webhook already exists and what happens on invalid URLs.

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 would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: 'one' HTTPS webhook constrains webhook_url usage, and rotate_secret is explained as replacing the secret and cancelling pending deliveries rather than the schema's inert 'Value for rotate secret.'

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 (set a webhook) plus its scope: 'one HTTPS webhook for new email notifications.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from the webhook_get/webhook_delete siblings by name, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Gives real preconditions – administrative permission, authorization to send metadata to the endpoint, and the receiver must be running. It does not, however, state when not to use it or point to an alternative (e.g., webhook_delete to remove a registration).

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