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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: HTTPS on port 443, secret format, anonymous sessions arriving with external:null, the 30-second minimum interval on session.progress, and that the same webhook-id repeats on delivery failure. One mild tension exists between 'remove:true apaga' and destructiveHint=false, though that removal is a config teardown rather than record destruction, so it reads as disclosure rather than contradiction.

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 purpose and constraint, then structured by topic (URL, secret, events, training, remove/test, retries). It is dense and semicolon-heavy, and the event taxonomy in the middle is packed tightly, but no sentence is filler.

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 an 8-parameter open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the payload semantics, delivery/retry behavior, rate limits, and secret handling an agent needs to configure it correctly. Remaining gaps are the enabled flag and what the response returns (e.g., generated secret or webhook id).

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 schema coverage at 50%, the description compensates for most gaps: it explains url (https/443), secret (whsec_ or omit to auto-generate), and the meaning of each event value including what each training event carries. The enabled and rotateSecret parameters are left to the schema, and enabled is undocumented in both places.

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 and resource: 'Configura o webhook do link permanente já publicado', plus the constraint that the tour must already be published. It is distinguishable from sibling integration tools like set_hubspot and set_rd_station, though it never says explicitly how it differs from them.

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 operational conditions: works on an already-published permanent link, a secret may be pasted (whsec_) or omitted for generation, remove:true deletes, and sendTest:true fires a lead.test event. It does not name an alternative tool or an exclusion case (e.g., when to use set_hubspot/set_lead_capture instead), which keeps it below a 5.

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