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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds far more: the old URL stops working immediately with no redeploy after rotate, secrets are returned once and never echoed back, signing secret is distinct from the URL secret, and signature verification currently ships dark. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with what a catch-hook is, then the no-create/delete rationale, then a compact per-action breakdown — the ordering is sensible and dense. It is long and the trailing note about signature verification shipping dark is useful but slightly tangential to invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers returns: list yields URLs, rule settings, per-status delivery counts and signing-secret state, while rotate and set_signing_secret return the new secret exactly once. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret results is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the action enum and the required app_id+name pairings. The description's prose largely restates those same field semantics, adding only the conceptual split between URL secret and signing secret, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 set and resource: managing a v2 app's inbound catch-hooks (inbound-webhooks), with each action enumerated. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that hooks are declared in the manifest and materialized at deploy, so there is no create or delete here.

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 clear when-to-use guidance per action: list is what yields the exact URL to paste into an external system after deploying a manifest, rotate is for a leaked URL, set_signing_secret for provisioning/rotating the opt-in HMAC secret. It also names the implicit alternative (declare in manifest / deploy) rather than this tool.

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