Create a webhook endpoint

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the signing secret is returned only once, requiring storage, and the need for the 'webhooks' scope. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it could detail idempotency or side effects.

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 three short sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding critical details (secret storage, scope) without superfluous text. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, unique secret handling, and auth requirement. It omits return value format but is sufficient given the openWorldHint and lack of output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already describes for 'url' and 'events'. No extra context is provided.

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 tool registers an endpoint for delivery receipts, specifying the purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hellio_list_webhooks by focusing on creation.

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 usage for receiving delivery receipts and mentions the 'webhooks' scope, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparative context are given.

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