Api webhooks endpoints object retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description advertises create, update and delete capabilities. That is a direct conflict with the declared behavior profile, and no useful behavioral context (auth scope, response shape, error on unknown id) is added.

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?

One short sentence that is efficient only because it says almost nothing. The space that is used is spent on an irrelevant CRUD enumeration rather than the retrieval action, so brevity here reflects under-specification, not economy.

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 tool with a required identifier, an open-world annotation and no output schema, the description omits purpose, targeting, and return expectations entirely. An agent could not correctly call this or know what it receives back from the description alone.

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 must carry the burden for the single required 'id' parameter, but it never mentions what the id identifies or what form it takes. The schema declares the field as a required string, and the description adds nothing beyond that.

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 restates the resource family ('API endpoint') and then lists generic CRUD operations rather than stating that this specific tool retrieves a single webhook endpoint by id. It gives no way to distinguish this from the many sibling *_object_retrieve tools, so an agent must infer purpose from the tool name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus ciso_assistant_api_webhooks_endpoints_list or ciso_assistant_api_webhooks_endpoints_retrieve. Worse, naming create/update/delete invites an agent to select this read-only tool for mutations, which is actively misleading rather than merely silent.

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