manage_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses destructive delete with human confirmation, URL restrictions (https, no private IPs), and that the webhook receives SMS delivery events. It could mention error handling or what happens if no webhook exists, but overall strong.

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 concise with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the purpose, lists actions with explanations, and adds important constraints. 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?

The description lacks any mention of return values or output, which would be helpful given no output schema. It covers the tool's behavior well but misses what the agent can expect back from actions like 'list' or 'add'. Adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that URL must be https and rejects private IPs/localhost, which is not in the schema. This extra constraint justifies a 4.

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 it manages a webhook (one per user) with specific actions (list, add, toggle, delete). It distinguishes from sibling tools as no other tool manages webhooks, making its purpose unique and well-defined.

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 explains the actions and constraints (one webhook per user, destructive delete with human confirmation) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives. Since no alternative exists, the guidance is sufficient.

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