shelly_webhook_create

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that the action is 'Audit-logged' and explains optional parameters (condition as JS expression, repeat_period semantics). Annotations only provide idempotentHint, so this adds value. No contradictions.

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 sentences with clear separation of required and optional parameters. No fluff. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping), but overall efficient and front-loaded.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema provided, the description covers only a subset. Missing explanation for 'device' (required) and 'enable' limits completeness. Given the sibling webhook family, it provides adequate context for basic use but not enough for complex cases.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains event (with example), cid, urls (1-5), condition, and repeat_period. However, it omits several parameters including the required 'device' and optional 'name' and 'enable', leaving gaps in understanding.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a webhook' and lists key parameters with examples (e.g., event 'switch.on'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling webhook tools (list, update, delete) by its creation function.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The usage is implied by the tool name and sibling set, but there is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where alternative tools (e.g., webhook_update) would be more appropriate.

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