ecp_git_webhook_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the primary behavioral effect: 'runs `commands` automatically whenever a matching push arrives' and includes a safety warning to review commands before confirming. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as overwriting existing webhooks, required permissions, or irreversibility, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the warning about reviewing commands is relevant and placed after the core action. Every sentence contributes meaning, and nothing is repetitive.

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?

This is a creation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is sparse and does not explain key parameters or the interaction between them (e.g., how provider and branch_filter affect the webhook). It also omits any mention of what the response will contain or any side effects beyond running commands. An agent would struggle to construct a correct request without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It only hints at two parameters: `commands` (runs commands) and `confirm` (review before confirming). It does not explain `app_id`, `provider`, or `branch_filter`, which are critical for correct invocation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema and fails to cover all 5 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 the action: 'Create a deploy webhook for an app.' It specifies the resource (webhook) and the verb (create), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get/update/delete by the explicit creation intent. It also elaborates on the purpose by explaining the webhook runs commands on matching pushes.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to create a new deploy webhook) but does not explicitly differentiate it from alternatives like ecp_git_webhook_update or delete. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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