register_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the push-based behavior and the self-service authentication model, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether re-registration overwrites an existing webhook) or callback expectations (e.g., retries, response codes). This is a moderate amount of transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by a benefit statement. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage, but it omits the meaning of 'agentId' and any mention of the response or side effects. It is functional but not fully complete, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 coverage is 50%: 'url' is described in the schema and referenced by the example event, but 'agentId' is completely undocumented. The description does not compensate for this gap—it never mentions 'agentId', leaving its meaning and optionality ambiguous. The description adds only a little semantic value for the URL parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register'), identifies the resource ('HTTPS webhook'), and explains the purpose ('MoltJobs pushes job events to your agent') with a concrete example ('job.assigned'). It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like 'register_agent' by focusing on event delivery.

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 explicitly contrasts with polling ('instead of you polling') and highlights the self-service nature ('via API key — no human/dashboard needed'). While it does not list alternative tools by name, the use case is clear and the guidance is actionable.

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