send_webhook_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the webhook must already exist, whether the message is irreversible, rate-limit or error behavior, or what identity the message appears under when username/avatarUrl are omitted.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming the operation and its distinguishing capabilities. It is appropriately sized for a simple action tool.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core action but omits usage routing against siblings and any behavioral caveats. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the Discord webhook URL and the override fields. The description restates the override behavior at a high level but adds no format, validation, or default-value detail beyond the schema.

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 combination (send a message) and the mechanism (via webhook URL with custom display name and avatar). It is clearly distinct from send_message and send_direct_message in mechanism, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the mechanism itself. With siblings like send_message, send_direct_message, and create_webhook, an agent gets no help deciding when a webhook post is preferred over a normal channel message.

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