create_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains HMAC signing, event type list requirements, and that signingSecret is returned once. This adds useful behavioral context, though it omits details like idempotency or rate limits.

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 succinct sentences, each providing crucial information: purpose and key behavioral details. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 no output schema, the description covers the creation behavior and the critical output element (signingSecret). It could mention the returned webhook object or error conditions, but the current completeness is good for a creation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying eventTypes format (non-empty list, specific values) and the significance of signingSecret (returned once). For the URL and sender params, it supplements but mostly echoes the schema.

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 webhook endpoint that receives HMAC-signed event callbacks,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_webhooks, get_webhook, etc., by focusing on creation.

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 description provides usage context by listing event types and noting that signingSecret is returned once, implying setup guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this vs. alternatives like update_webhook, or exclude cases like when to not create a webhook.

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