Create webhook

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

The description notes 'The HMAC secret is write-only,' which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations — it tells agents not to expect the secret back in responses. However, annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation is expected), and the description adds little else about what happens on creation, validation failures, or delivery behavior. The write-only secret note is the main added value.

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 short sentences communicate the core purpose and the key behavioral caveat (write-only secret). No wasted words. Could arguably add more but for what it covers, it's tight 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?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't mention what response to expect (webhook id? confirmation?), how the created webhook appears in list_webhooks, what auth/permissions are required, or the meaning of the idempotency_key parameter which affects retry semantics. Given 6 parameters and no output schema, more context would help.

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 50%, meaning 3 parameters (enabled, description, idempotency_key) lack schema descriptions. The write-only HMAC note adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Secret you provide to sign webhook deliveries with HMAC,' clarifying the secret won't be retrievable later. However, the description doesn't explain the idempotency_key parameter, which is significant for a create operation.

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 states it creates a webhook endpoint with specific verb+resource ('Create a webhook endpoint'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_webhooks, update_webhook, and delete_webhook, which are separate operations on the same resource.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites like needing to list webhooks first, no mention that this is a create operation distinct from update/delete, and no context about when a webhook would be appropriate. The schema does show required params (project_id, url, hmac_secret) but the description gives no usage direction.

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