npm_hook_add

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful transparency by stating that the secret is never echoed back in responses, which is not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, followed by precise parameter guidance and a key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description fully explains all three required input parameters, which is the core need. However, there is no output schema or description of what the tool returns on success/failure, leaving the agent unsure about the expected response shape beyond the secret not being echoed.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces target formats and endpoint/secret roles but adds little beyond what the schema provides, aside from the 'never echoed' note which is more behavioral.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('registry webhook'), and elaborates the exact target formats. It clearly distinguishes this creation operation from the sibling hook tools (list/get/update/remove) by the action itself.

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 gives clear context for when to use it—creating a webhook—and precisely defines the target argument formats. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for updating an existing hook) or name alternatives, but the creating action is unambiguous.

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