Create Webhooks Hook (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it states that calling it again creates another record (non-idempotency, concrete detail for idempotentHint=false), describes error payloads and common failure codes (401/403/404), and announces the deprecation date and removal schedule. These details are not present in the 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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope requirement, deprecation notice and alternative, the create action and return, idempotency behavior, error handling, API location, and endpoint. The structure front-loads the critical deprecation warning and follows with operational details, with no redundant wording.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, return value, error semantics, deprecation status, and exact API endpoint. The agent can confidently decide whether to use this tool, what to expect in response, and how to find the recommended replacement.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds context by explaining that hooks must be created within a company and/or project scope, which helps clarify the expected execution context even though no parameter fields exist to specify it.

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 'Creates the webhooks hook and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)' — a specific verb, resource, and expected return. It also identifies itself as deprecated and gives the exact endpoint path and HTTP method, distinguishing it from scoped sibling tools like create_company_webhooks_hook and create_project_webhooks_hook.

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 explicitly tells the agent the endpoint is deprecated and to 'prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists', directing it to use procore_search_endpoints to find an alternative. This is clear when-not-to-use guidance, though it could be even more direct by naming the specific scoped sibling tools as replacements.

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