gitea_create_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It does not mention whether the operation validates the URL immediately, what permissions are required, what errors occur on duplicates, or the structure of the response.

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 a single efficient sentence with no redundancy. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise rather than helpful context, and the brevity is inappropriate for the tool's 9-parameter complexity.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotation coverage, the description is inadequate. It fails to document parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or error conditions necessary for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate for undocumented parameters. While 'repository' loosely implies the 'owner' and 'repo' parameters, critical parameters like 'site' (Gitea instance URL), 'events' (valid event types), 'secret' (HMAC purpose), and 'type' (webhook provider type) are completely unexplained.

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 the core action ('Create'), resource ('webhook'), and context ('for a repository to receive event notifications'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'directus_create_webhook' or indicate when to use this versus 'gitea_update_webhook'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gitea_update_webhook' or 'gitea_test_webhook'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., repository must exist) or idempotency concerns if the webhook already exists.

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