send_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sends a message via webhook, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence in French ('Envoie un message via webhook') with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral context, return values, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a webhook-sending tool with mutation implications, this minimal description is insufficient.

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%, with all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Envoie un message via webhook' clearly states the action (send) and resource (message via webhook), but it's vague about what kind of message or to what destination. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'envoyer_message' or 'create_webhook', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific webhook-sending tool.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'envoyer_message' (send message) and 'create_webhook', the description offers no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook) or comparison to direct message-sending tools, leaving usage unclear.

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