hires_create_job_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key constraint ('URL must be HTTPS') and indicates this is a setup step, but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or what response to expect. The description adds some value beyond the schema but lacks rich behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase earns its place. The extra note 'Core step for outbound integration setup' adds context without verbosity, and 'URL must be HTTPS' is a critical constraint stated concisely.

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 simple two-parameter create operation, the description provides the basic action but omits expected response behavior (no output schema exists). It also fails to differentiate from the similar sibling 'hires_create_webhook', leaving the agent uncertain about which to choose. This is a notable gap for tool selection.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description repeats the HTTPS requirement already present in the schema, offering no additional semantic value. It does not clarify the exact format of 'alias' or how the job ID maps to 'job-related events'.

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 states the action ('Register a webhook URL') and the resource ('job-related events'), using a specific verb and object. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'hires_create_webhook', which likely serves a different scope (general vs job-specific webhooks). The phrase 'job-related' provides some differentiation, but the ambiguity remains.

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 'Core step for outbound integration setup' gives clear context on when to use this tool, implying it's needed for outbound integrations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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