Create, test or delete a webhook

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

The description adds several behavioral details beyond the annotations: it mentions that deliveries are 'signed' (a security trait), that test checks reachability, and that creating returns a 'signing secret that is shown only once' – a critical one-time disclosure. These are not present in the annotations and are essential for the agent to inform the user. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 entire description is two sentences: the first establishes the purpose, and the second lists the actions while adding the one critical nuance about the one-time secret. It is front-loaded with the purpose and wastes no words.

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 rich schema (with per-parameter descriptions) and an output schema, the description effectively summarizes the core operations and key behavior (signed deliveries, one-time secret). However, it does not explicitly clarify that test/delete actions require the webhook ID, even though that is implied by the schema description for the 'webhook' parameter. This small gap prevents a perfect score, but the description is otherwise complete.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for every parameter (e.g., 'create: the https:// endpoint' and 'gate.completed (captured leads) requires the Pro plan'). The description only adds high-level context about the overall workflow, not new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear high-level statement ('Manage where EveryPage sends event notifications') and then explicitly lists the three operations: create an endpoint, send a test delivery, and delete one. The verb 'Manage' plus the focus on webhook endpoints distinguishes it from sibling everypage_list_webhooks, which only lists webhooks.

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 clearly frames the tool as for managing webhook endpoints, and the parameter descriptions further specify which parameters apply to which action (e.g., 'webhook' for test/delete and 'create:' for others). It also references the sibling everypage_list_webhooks as the source for the endpoint ID, which hints at the alternative for listing. However, it does not explicitly state 'when not to use this tool' or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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