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

Despite annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: true) telling the agent it's a non-destructive, open-world operation, the description goes far beyond: it explains the key is used once and not stored, that without appSlug a new app is created and removed if the provider refuses the key, that re-running replaces the registration, and that GitHub sends a signed ping immediately. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context the annotations do not provide, and there is no contradiction with them.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action and then adds important behavioral details in a logical order. It is dense but not wasteful; every sentence carries actionable information. A slightly tighter grouping could improve readability, but it's highly effective.

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 non-read-only, open-world tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: the exact effect, side effects, idempotency, failure handling, provider-specific behavior (GitHub ping), and the follow-up step for forwarding. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters (provider_key, appSlug, target, api_key) are documented in the schema. The description reinforces appSlug behavior and provider_key usage ('the provider is read from the key'), but adds no new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Wire a provider to AnyHook in one call', and enumerates the exact effects (register webhook, save signing secret, enable signature verification). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like anyhook_apps_create by describing the end-to-end provider-side registration.

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 explains when this is used (to wire a provider), what happens with or without appSlug, and what happens on re-run. It hints that events are logged until a destination is added, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool vs. anyhook_apps_create or anyhook_providers. Still, the 'afterwards' note implicitly guides the agent to a separate step for forwarding.

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