Contract Testing: Create Webhook

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

There is a direct contradiction: the description says 'create' (a write operation) but the annotation declares readOnlyHint=true. Additionally, the description omits behavioral traits like whether the webhook is immediately active, permissions needed, or side effects. This is a significant failing.

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: one sentence of purpose, a toolset label, and a bullet list of parameters. Each element earns its place without fluff. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values (e.g., the created webhook object or confirmation). It does not. Also, it lacks context about idempotency (annotation claims idempotent, but creation is not naturally idempotent), and no error handling hints. Given the complexity (7 params, nested objects), more completion is needed.

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 baseline from the schema is high. The description lists all parameters with succinct explanations, but it largely repeats the schema descriptions. It adds no extra semantic context (e.g., default values for 'enabled' are already in 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?

The description clearly states 'Create a new webhook to trigger on contract events.' The verb 'create' combined with the resource 'webhook' and the trigger context makes the purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling webhook tools (delete, execute, get, list, update).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create vs update a webhook, or prerequisites like team membership. With many siblings, explicit usage context is missing.

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