sendook_create_webhook

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a webhook (a mutation), and adds constraints on the endpoint (HTTPS, response time) beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing webhooks or rate limits.

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 with a clear structure: purpose, constraints, event list, and parameter/return summary. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 tool has one parameter (params) with full schema detail and an output schema exists. The description explains the return type ('str: Created webhook details including id and subscribed events'), which is sufficient for an agent to use the tool, though the exact format is not detailed.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description covers both parameters ('url' and 'events') with their meanings, complementing the schema's own descriptions. It adds context like HTTPS requirement for url and event list examples.

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 it creates a webhook for real-time event notifications, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('webhook'). It lists available event types, making the purpose very clear and distinct from sibling tools like delete or list.

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 explicit requirements (HTTPS endpoint, 15-second timeout, 2xx response) and lists available events, which helps the agent understand when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tools are different operations, so context is clear.

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