Create an inbound webhook

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

Description reveals that the signingSecret is returned only once, which is critical behavioral info. It also states that events become tasks, indicating the tool creates a persistent resource. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not cover prerequisites like needing an existing worker or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and key returns. Every word adds value without 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?

For a creation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, prerequisites (e.g., worker must exist), and side effects. The core purpose is clear, but the agent lacks sufficient context to use it correctly without additional inference.

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?

The description adds no information about the three parameters (displayName, generateSecret, inboundAuthMode). With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so. The agent must rely solely on parameter names which may be ambiguous (e.g., inboundAuthMode values are not explained).

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 connection' with specific verb and resource. It explains what is returned (endpointUrl + signingSecret) and the outcome (events become tasks for the bound worker). This distinguishes it from sibling connection_create_api by specifying 'webhook'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like connection_create_api or webhook_register. The context of 'inbound webhook' is implied but not differentiated from similar tools.

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