Set Monobank webhook

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

It discloses that any previously registered URL stops receiving events, that the bank first probes with a GET requiring HTTP 200, that StatementItem events are sent for every balance change, and that an empty string removes the webhook. These details are not present in the annotations, which only flag idempotence and destructiveness.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: replacement effect, probe/event behavior, removal, and pre-check advice. The destructive consequence is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 single-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, server behavior, removal semantics, and the relevant sibling check. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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% and the schema already documents the URL constraint and the empty-string disable behavior. The description reinforces these points but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Replace the single webhook URL on the token owner's profile'. It clearly separates this mutating webhook tool from the read-only sibling tools and also covers the removal case with an empty string.

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?

It gives an explicit pre-condition: 'Check get_client_info first if the existing webhook matters', pointing the agent to the right sibling before a destructive call. It also states the URL must answer a GET probe with HTTP 200, which is a concrete acceptance criterion for when the tool will succeed.

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