Api webhooks audit sinks object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that these are admin-managed destinations scoped by Folder/IAM, hinting at permission requirements, but "Folder/IAM" is left undefined and no return content or error behavior is described.

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?

It is short and front-loads the resource definition, but it is a noun phrase with no verb, and the cryptic "Folder/IAM" fragment consumes space without conveying actionable meaning. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than from tight editing.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description identifies the resource domain adequately, but it omits what the retrieval returns, how it relates to the near-identical sibling _retrieve, and what Folder/IAM means for access.

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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for the lone `id` parameter, yet it never mentions it — no indication of whether it is a UUID, slug, or ref_id, nor that it identifies the audit sink. The parameter name is broadly inferable, but nothing compensates for the documentation gap.

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 names the resource precisely ("Admin-managed audit-log forwarding destinations (kind=AUDIT_SINK)") and adds a distinguishing kind qualifier, but it never states the action — retrieval of a single sink by id — which is the actual verb of the tool. The trailing "Folder/IAM" is an unexplained fragment that does not help an agent separate this from siblings such as webhooks_audit_sinks_retrieve or webhooks_audit_sinks_list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives; the description never says to use the list tool to enumerate sinks or how this differs from the sibling _retrieve endpoint. An agent must infer the single-object read scenario purely from the tool name.

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