Datoka Hooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes beyond them by specifying WHAT makes the call idempotent: the combination of eventId and exact bytes. That is non-trivial retry guidance a caller needs. It still omits what happens on success (queued vs delivered) and any auth/error behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero filler; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse for a five-required-parameter write tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 write tool with five required parameters, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies only the idempotency rule. It never explains the auth token, the hookId format, the accepted content types or the body encoding/size limit, so an agent must reverse-engineer most of the contract from the raw schema.

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 0% across five required parameters, so the description must carry the explanatory load. It names only eventId (and only in the context of idempotency); token, hookId, contentType and bodyBase64 receive no semantic explanation, leaving the discriminating token pattern and the base64 size cap undocumented in prose.

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 (enqueue) and resource (an event), plus the target scope ('your verified receiver'), which cleanly separates it from sibling reads like get_hook_delivery and lifecycle tools like register/verify/revoke_destination. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stays short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for your verified receiver' implicitly encodes a prerequisite (the destination must already be verified via verify_destination/register_destination), which is useful context an agent can act on. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative among the six siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that the response includes a 'challenge,' which is a useful output-related trait beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral context beyond what the annotations already 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 single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief, though its extreme terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with undocumented parameters. Still, it avoids any filler or redundancy.

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 two fully undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what hookId means, why managementToken is needed, and ideally what the returned status and challenge represent. It only gestures at the return content ('challenge') without clarifying parameters or usage context. Annotations cover safety, but the description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 has two required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention hookId or managementToken at all. An agent receives no help understanding that hookId identifies the destination or that managementToken is an authentication credential. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 clear read verb and the specific resource: verification/revocation status and challenge. It distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings like verify_destination and revoke_destination by framing the operation as a read. However, it does not explicitly name the destination resource, so some inference is still required.

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 provides no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the word 'Read' and the sibling names that this is a status-checking tool rather than a mutation or verification tool. There is no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of verify_destination or get_hook_delivery.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: 'signed observations' hints at cryptographic verification but never explains what signing means here, nor does it note the token-based authorization the required parameters imply.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the key action front-loaded and no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance, reading more like an under-specified stub than a deliberately tight definition.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify what 'delivery state' contains and how the required token is supplied. It leaves return values, error behavior, and authorization all unexplained, so an agent cannot call it confidently.

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 0% for all three required parameters. The schema's patterns (64-hex token, pub- hookId, UUID deliveryId) convey format but not meaning, and the description supplies no semantics for hookId, token, or deliveryId. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 verb 'Read' plus the resource 'delivery state and signed observations' gives a rough sense of purpose, but 'signed observations' is jargon that an agent cannot reliably interpret. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as verify_hook_receipt or get_destination_status, which likely overlap in the delivery/receipt space.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that an authentication token is required. With verify_hook_receipt among the siblings, an agent gets no help deciding which to call. Nothing is actively misleading, but guidance is entirely absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the recoveryKey must be kept secret and reused only with the same target across retries, which aligns with idempotentHint and explains key handling. It still omits what the created access actually grants.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the security-critical recoveryKey guidance is stated plainly. The opening sentence is vague rather than informative, so brevity comes at some cost to clarity.

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 that creates access with no output schema and no annotations covering what is produced, the description should explain what an "isolated access" is, prerequisites, and success/error behavior. It covers only retry semantics, leaving the core operation undefined.

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 0%, so both parameters rely on the description. It does address both: recoveryKey by name (keep secret, reuse on retries) and target implicitly ("same target"). However, it adds no format semantics such as the 64-hex-character pattern or URI constraint, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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 says "Create an isolated access," which is an obscure restatement that never names the resource (a destination/webhook endpoint) or connects to the sibling set. An agent cannot confidently tell what register_destination produces versus verify_destination or get_destination_status. The verb is present but the object is opaque.

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 only usage guidance is the retry hint ("reuse it only with the same target on retries"), which is narrow and operational. It never states when to register versus when to verify, revoke, or check status via the siblings, so the agent gets no routing guidance.

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

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating that revocation is permanent and that previously accepted deliveries will finish. It does not cover permission requirements or rate limits, but the added effect on in-flight deliveries is valuable.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. The permanence condition is stated first, followed by the delivery behavior, making it easy 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 destructive mutation with two required parameters and no schema parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It adds permanence and in-flight delivery handling but omits required token intent, hook ID semantics, error behavior, and any indication of what happens to future deliveries.

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 0% for two required parameters. The description does not mention hookId or managementToken at all, leaving their purpose and usage entirely undocumented beyond the schema patterns.

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 states a specific verb (revoke) and the effect on client access, and adds that the action is permanent. However, it does not name the destination/hook resource explicitly or distinguish itself from siblings like register_destination or verify_destination beyond the action verb.

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 provides no guidance about when to use revoke_destination versus alternatives such as register_destination or accept_hook_event. It implies a destructive cleanup scenario but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds that this performs an activation (state change) and involves an external challenge-file fetch, but says nothing about failure modes, retry semantics, or whether activation is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for the surface text. Its brevity is not the problem; the issue is that the content is too thin rather than too long.

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?

This is a mutating, token-authenticated operation in a multi-step webhook lifecycle, yet the description omits the sequencing context (when verification becomes possible), what the challenge file is, and what success/failure means. With no output schema, the description has to carry that context and does not.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the burden and does not compensate: neither hookId nor managementToken is mentioned or explained. Only the schema patterns (pub- prefixed id, 64-hex token) hint at their roles, and 'your destination' loosely gestures at hookId at best.

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 names a verb and two effects (verify a challenge file, activate a destination), so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'well-known challenge file' is unexplained jargon and there is no differentiation from siblings such as register_destination or get_destination_status, which sit in the same webhook lifecycle.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus register_destination, get_destination_status, or verify_hook_receipt. The agent must infer that this is the post-registration verification step, and no prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds only that the call happens in an authenticated hook, and says nothing about what a failed verification means, error behavior, or the token/receipt trust model — thin for a verification routine.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded, which is structurally fine. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision, since key behavior is simply absent.

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 four mandatory parameters, nested object inputs, no output schema, and no annotations about return values, the description is far too sparse. An agent cannot know what a successful verification returns or what failure looks like, which is exactly what this tool's caller needs.

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?

Four required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, including two opaque nested objects (event, receipt), and the description supplies no parameter meaning beyond loosely implying 'hook' and 'receipt'. The regex-constrained hookId and token formats are undocumented anywhere except a bare pattern, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('verify a relay receipt'), which is better than tautology, but 'within your authenticated hook' is vague scoping rather than a clear statement of what is verified or against what. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling verify_destination or accept_hook_event, so an agent cannot route confidently from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. The phrase 'within your authenticated hook' is implied context, not guidance, and nothing tells the agent how this differs from the other verify/get hooks in the sibling list.

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