hookbase_create_destination

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names/URLs, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides valuable context about what destinations are. There's zero wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the response looks like, error conditions, or how this tool relates to the broader webhook system. The context about destinations being 'endpoints where webhooks are forwarded' is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral details.

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 documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have provided higher-level context about parameter relationships.

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 ('Create a new webhook destination') and resource ('webhook destination'), with additional context about what destinations are ('endpoints where webhooks are forwarded after processing'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hookbase_create_route or hookbase_create_source, which likely create different resource types in the same system.

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 like hookbase_update_destination or hookbase_test_destination. It mentions what destinations are used for ('where webhooks are forwarded'), but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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