shelly_webhook_create

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

Only idempotentHint is annotated, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses that the action is audit-logged and clarifies repeat_period semantics (seconds; 0=always, negative=once), which is real behavioral context. It still omits permissions requirements and what happens on duplicate creation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then terse parameter notes; no filler sentences. Compact and readable, though the inline backtick notation and trailing 'Audit-logged' fragment are slightly clipped.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, which is handled correctly. However, for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, leaving device, name, and enable entirely undocumented (including the required device) is a meaningful gap.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate and does so for five of eight params: event (with an example), cid, urls (1-5 bound), condition (JS expression), and repeat_period (unit and special values). It adds genuine semantics the schema lacks, though device, name, and enable are left undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a webhook'), which clearly distinguishes it from the other webhook siblings (list/update/delete). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous from the leading clause alone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus e.g. shelly_webhook_update or shelly_rpc_write, and no stated prerequisites. The closest thing to guidance is the parameter explanation, which is not usage scoping.

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