hookbase_create_tunnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a tunnel and mentions CLI connectivity, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether the tunnel is persistent, error conditions, or what happens on creation failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action (create tunnel) and followed by a usage note. It's efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from implementation details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a creation tool with potential behavioral complexity, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on what the tool returns, error handling, or operational context needed for an AI agent to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 both parameters (name and subdomain) fully. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 creates a new localhost tunnel and mentions it can be connected using the Hookbase CLI to forward webhooks to a local server. This specifies the verb (create), resource (localhost tunnel), and purpose (forward webhooks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hookbase_create_destination or hookbase_create_source, which also create resources.

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. It mentions the CLI connection but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to other tunnel-related tools like hookbase_list_tunnels or hookbase_delete_tunnel. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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