hires_create_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create a company-scoped webhook subscription' without disclosing side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what the response will contain. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and usage context, making it highly concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two well-documented parameters) and clear company-scoped purpose, the description covers the essential context. Some return-value information would improve completeness, but the lack is not critical for such a straightforward create operation.

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 input schema describes both parameters (id as Company ID and url as Webhook destination URL with HTTPS requirement), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what already exists in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Create a company-scoped webhook subscription', specifying a concrete verb (Create) and resource (webhook subscription). The 'company-scoped' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling tool hires_create_job_webhook, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 'Use for outbound company-level event integrations' provides clear context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the company-scoping in the description contrasts with job-scoped webhook siblings, offering implicit guidance.

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