set_mailbox_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the action is a one-time secret reveal, that regenerateSecret invalidates the old secret, that deliveries are HTTPS POSTs, and exactly how to verify the HMAC signature before trusting payloads.

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: purpose, security constraint, one-time secret behavior, and signature verification details. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded before implementation specifics.

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 webhook-setup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (signing secret, shown once), the delivery mechanism, and verification steps. Nothing required to call the tool correctly or handle its response is missing.

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 is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the URL must be https and is invoked on every inbound message, and regenerateSecret relates to first-time secret issuance and one-time visibility. This enriches the parameters without repeating the schema verbatim.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('set or update the URL') and the exact mailbox scope. It clearly differentiates itself from polling list_messages and from sibling webhook tools by describing what this endpoint creates and what happens on delivery.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool as the alternative to polling list_messages for discovering new mail, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention get_mailbox_webhook or delete_mailbox_webhook as exclusions, but the primary decision between polling and webhook is addressed directly.

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