test_webhook

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool sends a test event and verifies reachability/signatures, which is non-destructive but not read-only. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if the test event triggers actual processing) or rate limits. The openWorldHint=true is not elaborated.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary information.

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 simplicity (testing a webhook) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned in context), the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does and why, though it could briefly mention what the response contains (e.g., success/failure indicators).

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 input schema already describes both parameters (companyId as optional, webhookId as required) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Send a test event'), the resource ('outbound webhook endpoint'), and the purpose ('verify it is reachable and signatures can be validated'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_webhook, delete_webhook, and replay_webhook_delivery by focusing on testing an existing webhook.

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 implies usage after setting up a webhook to test connectivity and signature validation, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like replay_webhook_delivery for testing past deliveries. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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