add_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the webhook fires on each submission, requires a paid plan, and only accepts https public URLs. It stops short of stating auth/permission needs, what happens on invalid or duplicate URLs, or whether the secret is generated or user-supplied at creation time.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the constraints follow. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% parameter coverage, the description covers plan gating and URL rules but omits name/formId semantics, permission requirements, and error behavior. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description should compensate. It does add real meaning for url (https, public host only) and confirms the type values, but leaves name and formId undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Add a webhook') plus the supported flavors (generic, Slack, Discord) and the triggering event ('fires on each submission'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like list_webhooks, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling the way the top-calibration example does.

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?

It states real prerequisites ('Professional plan and above') and an input constraint ('https URLs to public hosts only'), which is useful when-to-use context. However, it never says when to choose this over alternatives such as list_webhooks, nor what to do if the plan requirement isn't met.

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