create_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description does not state whether the webhook is immediately active, what happens on duplicate URLs, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specifying for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, so while it earns points for brevity, it loses some for lack of useful content.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and only the bare minimum description. The schema provides parameter details, but the description does not explain what happens after creation, whether a webhook ID is returned, or what events are valid. Given the tool's complexity (a create operation with event subscription), the description is incomplete.

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%, so the schema already defines both parameters: url and events. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics well, and the tool has only two parameters, one required.

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 'Create a new webhook.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and target. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like test_webhook or list_webhooks beyond the obvious 'create' vs. 'list/test' difference, and it doesn't mention what a webhook is in this context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_webhooks to manage existing webhooks, test_webhook to test one). It doesn't specify prerequisites such as needing a URL or what events are available, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the schema.

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