rerun_webhooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses a behavioral trait beyond the name: the action is bulk and non-selective ('all previously scheduled webhooks for today'), and the POST path signals a state-changing operation. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether the re-fire is idempotent, or what the response contains.

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 first two lines are well front-loaded, but roughly half the text is an SEO keyword dump. Worse, that dump includes 'create webhook, add webhook, new webhook, make webhook, write webhook', which misdescribes a re-fire action as a creation action and can actively mislead an agent.

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 parameterless, output-schema-less action tool, the description covers the action, its scope, and the HTTP method, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Missing only permission/return-value context, which is minor at this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies the scope is implicit (today's scheduled webhooks) rather than parameterized.

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+resource ('Re-run webhook', 'Manually re-fires all previously scheduled webhooks for today') and the endpoint path clarifies the scope. It is distinguishable from households_webhooks_get_all / households_webhooks_create_one, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling test_one.

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 'Manually re-fires all previously scheduled webhooks for today' implies the use case (recovering from a failed or missed delivery), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative test_one, and no note about when NOT to call it (e.g., if nothing is scheduled).

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