create_webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the response carries an HMAC signing secret, it is gated by an allow-list env var, and it constitutes a persistent data-export channel requiring approval.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds the two most decision-relevant caveats (host allow-list gating, approval advisory) in short lines. No wasted filler, though it is terse enough that the caveats read as fragments.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the non-obvious operational constraints (allow-list gating, approval, secret in response), leaving little an agent needs missing 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 100%, so the schema fully documents uri, triggers, and campaign_id, and the description contributes no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Create a webhook') and notes the salient output (HMAC signing secret). It is clearly distinct from siblings like update_webhook and delete_webhook by virtue of the create verb, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Provides a precondition ('Disabled unless PATREON_WEBHOOK_ALLOWED_HOSTS permits the target host') and an advisory ('clients should require approval'), which implies when this is usable. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus list_webhooks/update_webhook or otherwise routes the agent among alternatives.

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