create_webhook

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

With only openWorldHint=false in annotations and no readOnly/destructive hints, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful input constraints (topic format, valid resources and events) but does not disclose side effects like confirmation messages, idempotency, or required permissions beyond the schema. This is moderate disclosure, not rich behavioral context.

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 extremely concise—three sentences that front-load the core action ('Create a webhook') and then provide essential formatting details. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's primary input requirement.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations. The description covers the most critical input constraint (topic composition) and lists valid resources/events, but does not mention return values or potential validation errors. Given the schema already documents field meanings, the description is sufficiently complete for a create operation, though it could briefly state the response behavior.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by enumerating valid resources and events for the 'topic' parameter, which goes beyond the schema's example and clarifies the exact format expected. This compensates for the lack of an enum in 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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'webhook', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhooks. It also provides the topic format ('resource.event') with concrete examples, making the purpose 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 description implies when to use the tool (for creating a new webhook) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives such as using update_webhook for existing webhooks. The topic format and resource/event lists provide context on valid inputs, but no direct guidance on choosing between create and other webhook operations.

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