assign_webhook_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes only the action without stating side effects (e.g., whether existing mappings are overwritten), required permissions, or idempotency. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and usage guidelines. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 presence of a full output schema and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description adequately covers the essential context (what it does and when to use it). However, it leaves out behavioral nuances like overwrite behavior, which would elevate completeness to a 5.

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 covers all 4 parameters comprehensively. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 action: 'Map a resource (job, monitor, or monitor_group) to a webhook.' It identifies the specific verb 'map' and the resource types, distinguishing it from siblings like list_webhook_resources or remove_webhook_resource.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use when: - You want a webhook to fire for a specific job or monitor's deliveries.' This tells when to use the tool, but does not mention when not to use it or offer alternative tools.

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