createWebhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that callbackUrl must be HTTPS, a constraint, but omits important traits like idempotency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on duplicate subscriptions. The description does not reveal the tool's behavior beyond the basic constraint, so it scores 2.

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, covering the purpose and key details about event types and URL requirement. It is concise without verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate parameter notes). Overall, it earns a 4.

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?

The tool creates a webhook subscription but provides no output schema. The description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., webhook ID or confirmation). It partially covers parameters but lacks details on behavior or response. Given the complexity of a creation tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete, scoring 2.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping listId integers to event types (e.g., '1=Agent Info'), which is not in the schema description. It also reiterates the callbackUrl requirement. However, it does not add details about the 'limit' parameter or provide syntax guidance, so it scores 4 rather than 5.

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's purpose: 'Subscribe to a Lofty webhook event.' The verb 'Subscribe' is appropriate, and the resource is a webhook event. The description lists the possible event types, which adds clarity. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like listWebhooks, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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, such as listing existing webhooks first or conditions that might make subscription inappropriate. It lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions, so it scores 2.

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