create_org_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and scope, but does not mention required permissions, response format, potential side effects, or whether existing webhooks are overwritten. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. There is no wasted wording or irrelevant detail, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool has 5 parameters with a nested config object, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to provide more context. It clearly conveys the core purpose and scope but does not explain return values, default events, or any limitations. This is adequate but with visible gaps.

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 high (80%), so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that the webhook applies to all repositories, which is a scope clarification rather than parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'a webhook for an organization', with the clarifying phrase 'applies to all repositories in the organization' that distinguishes it from repo-specific webhooks like create_repo_webhook. This is a clear, specific statement of purpose.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for org-wide webhooks affecting all repositories, which implicitly tells the agent when to use it versus repo-specific webhook tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., create_repo_webhook) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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