Contract Testing: Create Webhook

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotations imply: no mention of side effects, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate webhook names. With no additional context, the agent may be unaware of constraints or consequences.

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 purpose sentence, a toolset header, and a clear parameter list. It avoids unnecessary prose, and each line has a purpose. The structure is easy to scan, though the parameter list could be seen as slightly verbose given the schema already covers it.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers all parameters with some added context. However, it lacks information on the response format (e.g., returned webhook object), error handling, or operational considerations like rate limits or authorization requirements. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, but the description adds value by restructuring the parameters with extra hints like 'omit for all' for consumer/provider, default values for enabled, and the format for teamUuid ('null for global'). This helps agents understand parameter usage beyond raw schema definitions. The manual listing is redundant but beneficial for quick reference.

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', which specifies a concrete action (create) and resource (webhook). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like update or delete, the verb 'create' and the context of contract events are sufficient for most agents. The parameter list adds further clarity, but the purpose is already clear without it.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_webhook or delete_webhook. The description only mentions a 'Toolset: Webhooks' header and lists parameters, but does not explain prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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