set_webhook

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

With only idempotentHint in annotations, the description adds meaningful context: that a webhook secret is returned and must be used to verify signatures. That is a behavioral detail not captured by annotations. It still omits permission/auth requirements and whether an existing webhook is overwritten, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the scoping rule, then the return-value note. No filler, though the scoping sentence is somewhat verbose for the point it makes.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: what it sets, the scope switch, and that a secret is returned. It leaves minor gaps (auth requirements, overwrite semantics) that are not critical to invoking it correctly.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description restates the agent_id scope behavior ('overrides project default') and adds nothing new for url, timeout, or context_limit. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Set a webhook URL') and immediately clarifies its purpose ('to receive inbound messages and call events'). It does not explicitly name the sibling webhook tools (delete_webhook, get_webhook, test_webhook), but the agent/scope distinction makes the operation's identity clear.

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?

Explicitly states the branching condition: pass agent_id for a per-agent webhook, omit it for the project default. It does not mention when to prefer alternatives such as delete_webhook or test_webhook, but the core usage context is unambiguous.

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