Contract Testing: Create Webhook

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

Annotations already mark this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a small behavioral detail by saying the webhook 'trigger[s] on contract events,' but it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, duplicate behavior, or what happens after creation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the parameter bullets are cleanly formatted. However, the bullet list duplicates information already present in the input schema, so it adds length without contributing new value.

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 plus schema provide enough to construct a valid create request, including required fields and nested request options. However, with no output schema, the description omits return values, response shape, and error/edge-case behavior, and it gives no practical context about webhook activation or scope.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description's parameter list largely mirrors schema text (e.g., 'Human-readable description of the webhook') and adds no new constraints, examples, or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new webhook to trigger on contract events.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_webhook, delete_webhook, list_webhooks, and execute_webhook without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over contract-testing_update_webhook, list_webhooks, execute_webhook, or test_execute_webhooks. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions mentioned; the only usage signal is the verb 'create.'

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