create_webhook

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

The description reveals that the signing secret is returned only once and must be stored for HMAC-SHA256 verification, which is critical behavioral information beyond the annotations. It also implicitly confirms the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second adds crucial behavioral detail about the signing secret, third states a prerequisite. Every sentence is valuable and front-loaded, with no redundancy.

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 description covers input behavior and prerequisites well, and mentions the signing secret in the response. However, without an output schema, it could further describe the full response structure (e.g., webhook ID, status) to fully inform the agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions almost verbatim for url and events, adding no new semantic meaning. The behavioral hint about the signing secret is valuable but not about parameters.

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 it creates a webhook subscription for HTTP POST notifications, and specifies example events like event.created, proposal.confirmed. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_webhook and list_webhooks 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 explains the purpose (receiving notifications) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires an org-level API key'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though the context of creation is clear among siblings.

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