hookbase_create_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that sources 'receive incoming webhooks' and 'can be connected to destinations via routes,' but lacks critical details like authentication requirements, whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), rate limits beyond the parameter, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place by defining the tool's function and its role in the system, with zero wasted words 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?

Given the tool's complexity (creation operation with 6 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) and output information, making it only minimally viable for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage examples), resulting in the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('Create a new webhook source') and resource ('webhook source'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_destination or create_route by specifying that sources receive incoming webhooks and can be connected to destinations via routes.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for creating webhook sources that receive incoming webhooks), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as create_destination for different purposes.

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