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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the outbound-write nature is known; the description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that — background fire-and-forget mode for slow webhooks, same-step attachment via agentId, and a mandatory confirmation gate. The secret-header redaction rule ('never repeat secret header values') is a real operational constraint the schema does not convey. It does not describe the return value or what happens on duplicate creation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent clause carries distinct information: dispatch mode, attachment, confirmation workflow, secret handling. The confirmation clause is a crowded list ('function, receptionist, behaviour, active state, endpoint (HTTP) and code/test summary (Code)') but it is dense rather than 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what a successful creation returns (function id, attached state). For a 10-parameter tool whose schema contains a nested inputSchema definition tree with children, validations and calculatedField, that structure is entirely undescribed. The workflow and safety guidance are solid; the data-shape guidance is the gap.

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 60% schema coverage, the schema already documents name, agentId, isActive, description, instruction and headers. The description adds semantic meaning for waitForResponse (background dispatch) and agentId (same-step attach) that the bare schema lacks. But the largest and most complex parameters — url, method, and the deeply nested inputSchema tree — get no explanatory treatment in either place.

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?

The first clause pairs a specific verb with a specific resource — an HTTP/webhook Agent Function invoked by the receptionist on live calls — and the '(HTTP)' vs '(Code)' phrasing in the later sentence makes the split with agent_functions_create_code legible. An agent can tell this apart from the code-based sibling without opening either 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?

It gives concrete decision rules: use waitForResponse=false for slow webhooks, pass agentId to attach in the same step, and always show the full configuration and get explicit confirmation before calling. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of agent_functions_create_code when...' exclusion, so the alternative is only implied.

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