test_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the delivery is signed and designed for end-to-end verification, but it does not mention what the response looks like, whether the test event is a real event, or any side effects on the webhook or system state. The lack of output schema makes this a notable gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning about what the tool does and why.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and a prerequisite. However, it omits information about the return value or expected output, which is especially important since no output schema is provided. The user is left to infer what 'verify connectivity' means in terms of the response.

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 schema covers the single parameter (webhook_id) with a description ('Webhook id (from list_webhooks)') at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Send a signed test delivery to one webhook endpoint' with the specific purpose 'so you can verify connectivity and signature handling end-to-end.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook and list_webhooks by focusing on testing an existing endpoint.

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 need to verify connectivity and signature handling for a webhook. It also provides a prerequisite ('Requires a developer key (floe_live_...)'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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