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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: rotate invalidates the old URL immediately with no redeploy, set_signing_secret never echoes a stored secret, and 'Signature verification currently ships dark: nothing verifies a signature yet.' These are valuable, honest disclosures that the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is a long, dense paragraph. While it contains important context, the action summary duplicates the schema's action enum descriptions almost verbatim, which is redundant for an agent that can already read the schema. The structure is not broken into bullets or sections, making it harder to scan.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers return behavior well: list returns full URLs and settings, rotate returns a new URL once, set_signing_secret mints or stores a secret and never echoes it, and clear_signing_secret removes it. It also explains the overall relationship to manifests and deploys, making the tool's context complete for an AI agent.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for action, name, secret, and grace_seconds. The description largely repeats the schema's action semantics (e.g., 'mint a fresh URL secret for one hook... invalidating the old URL immediately') rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. It adds contextual examples (Stripe, Zapier) but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 description clearly identifies the tool as managing a v2 app's inbound catch-hooks (inbound-webhooks), explicitly stating the three key operations: reading back the URL, rotating a leaked URL, and managing the opt-in signing secret. It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD/row tools by stating it has no create or delete capability.

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 says when to use the tool: 'After deploying a manifest that declares a hook, list is what yields the exact URL to paste into the external system.' It also explicitly says 'this tool has no create or delete,' which is a clear when-not. However, it does not name specific alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full explicit alternatives.

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