kronos_subscribe_webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: the vendor does not document idempotency, repeated calls may create duplicate subscriptions, and the tool returns the raw JSON response. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and risks.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint. It includes a warning and parameter summary without excessive verbosity. Slightly dense with Russian text, but every sentence earns its place.

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 has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the key behavioral and parameter context. It explains the push mechanism, idempotency risk, and parameter semantics. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the exact shape of the webhook payloads, but that's not necessary for invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains filial_id is required per call, actions must be a list of create_event/update_event/delete_event, and filial_ids is optional and defaults to all account branches. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though the schema itself already has decent property descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Подписаться на пуш-вебхуки'), the resource (events in Kronos), and the exact endpoint (POST /api/v1/webhooks/subscribe). It also explicitly distinguishes this from the rest of the API by noting it is the only push mechanism, which differentiates it from sibling tools that are pull/polling.

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 says this is the only push mechanism and the rest of the API is pull/polling, which tells an agent when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also warns about undocumented idempotency and advises checking on a real account, which is valuable usage guidance.

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