x_api_create_webhooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers mutating risk, required permissions (bearer token, OAuth 1a user token), environment-selection behavior (scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId/scopeAccountId), expected response shape, and common failure conditions, exceeding typical descriptions.

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 longer than average but well-structured with labeled sections. It's front-loaded with 'Create webhook.' Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Use when: Create webhook' repeats the first line), but every other sentence provides valuable context. The format aids scanning.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides extensive context: response shape, auth prerequisites, failure conditions, safety warnings, and an example invocation. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in most scenarios.

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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, credentialKey, and body, including the requirement of exactly one user/account scope. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not explained beyond a validation mention, so compensation is incomplete.

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 opens with 'Create webhook,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish among sibling tools like x_api_create_webhook_replay_job or x_api_create_webhooks_stream_link, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions, and suggests x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion for exploration. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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