Add a webhook destination

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new context: the endpoint must be HTTPS and the secret must be referenced by environment-variable name rather than transmitted. It does not disclose what happens on re-registration despite idempotentHint=false, nor what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, the primary action first and the credential rule second. No filler, and the security-critical caveat is stated directly rather than buried.

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 a write tool with 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation-backed detail on repeat registration, the description is thinner than the complexity warrants. The secret-handling rule is essential and present, but semantics for maxAttempts/enabled and the effect of duplicate registration are left uncovered.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partly discharges it: secretEnv is explained well (it names an operator environment variable) and url is implicitly constrained to HTTPS. monitorId, id, enabled, and maxAttempts (including its 1-100 bounds) get no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 ('Register an HTTPS webhook for a Monitor'), and clarifies what a 'delivery destination' actually is (an HTTPS webhook), which resolves the main ambiguity in the tool name. It doesn't explicitly name sibling destinations like pause_delivery_destination or list_delivery_destinations, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage context is only implied through 'for a Monitor' and the secret-handling caveat; there is no statement of when to create a destination versus using the pause/resume/list siblings, nor of prerequisites before registering. The 'never send the secret value' line is a real instruction but is about parameter input rather than tool selection.

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