Create webhook

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, meaning it's a mutating tool with side effects outside the sandbox. The description adds critical behavioral detail: it triggers a PING verification on creation unless status=PAUSED, and it requires a passcode for endpoint verification. This goes beyond the annotations to explain the side-effect behavior and a prerequisite, which is valuable for an agent deciding if it can proceed.

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?

A single sentence jam-packed with high-value information: HTTP method, path, side-effect (PING), status override, scope, and passcode requirement. No filler, front-loaded with the most critical fact (PING). It earns its place completely.

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 7-parameter tool with 5 required, no output schema, and mutations, this is highly complete. It tells the agent the essential: it's a POST, it will trigger a verification PING, it needs the webhooks:write scope, and it needs a passcode. The schema covers parameter specifics, and there's no output schema to explain return values. No side-effects or prerequisites are left undisclosed. Add a sibling distinction and it would be flawless.

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 43%, meaning the schema already describes endpoint, passcode, context_id, and event_type (the major ones). The description doesn't add parameter-level details, but it does state the passcode is required for verification (which is in schema but emphasizes its purpose) and clarifies the status enum's effect on PING. It doesn't repeat all schema details, which is fine; the key semantic boost is the PING/status interaction.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create webhook) and immediately adds detail: the HTTP method, path, and two critical side-effects (PING on create unless PAUSED, and scope requirement). This distinguishes it from sibling webhook tools like update_webhook or delete_webhook. It is unambiguous.

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?

States the scope requirement (webhooks:write) and the passcode requirement, which is essential when-to-use context for an agent to know it needs authorization and a verification code. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., list_webhooks, update_webhook) but the purpose and side-effect disclosure imply when to create versus update. No when-not-to-use guidance, but for a create tool that's less critical.

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