ls_create_webhook

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate this is a write operation, not destructive, not idempotent), the description reveals a critical behavioral trait: 'The signing secret is returned only once — save it immediately.' This adds value by warning the agent about a one-time return, which is not evident from annotations alone.

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 consists of two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second adds the crucial warning. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 required params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral detail. However, it does not describe the response format or what happens after creation (e.g., webhook starts sending events). This slight gap prevents a 5.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter (storeId, url, events, secret). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 clearly states 'Create a new webhook to receive event notifications,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ls_get_webhook, ls_update_webhook, and ls_delete_webhook by focusing on creation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ls_get_webhook or ls_list_webhooks. However, the tool name and description imply it is for initial setup, and the warning about the signing secret provides usage context.

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