create_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that webhooks send HTTP POST requests, explains that the signing secret is returned only once and must be saved immediately, and specifies HMAC-SHA256 verification. This is far beyond a minimal description.

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 long but every section earns its place: purpose, use cases, event types, security, and args. It is well-structured with Markdown headers and bullet lists, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's complexity (many event types) and the absence of annotations and schema descriptions, the description is remarkably complete. It covers creation semantics, event selection, security requirements, and parameter details. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary.

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?

Despite the input schema having zero description coverage, the description compensates with an Args section explaining all three parameters: 'name' as display name, 'url' as HTTPS endpoint, and 'events' with default behavior (empty = all). It also enumerates every valid event type in dotted notation, giving exact expected values.

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 a clear and specific statement: 'Create a webhook to receive real-time notifications for call events.' This identifies the verb, resource, and outcome, and it clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_webhooks (listing) and create_campaign (campaign management).

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 gives explicit use cases ('trigger workflows, update CRMs, log call outcomes, or build real-time dashboards') and detailed event type guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide appropriately.

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