Test webhook

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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: exactly one event, sent synchronously, redirects not followed, no queueing or retry, distinct event type. That materially tells the agent this is a fire-once probe rather than a durable delivery. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or what an unreachable endpoint yields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return signal, then the constraints. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 one-parameter probe with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (status and timing) and what does not happen (queueing, retries, redirect following). The only gap is failure-mode reporting when the receiver is unreachable or the webhook id is invalid.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including its source ('from list_webhooks or add_webhook'). The description adds no further detail about the id beyond implying the endpoint is looked up from it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Send one signed webhook.test event to an endpoint') plus the observable result ('report the receiver's HTTP status and timing'). The clause 'real events never use this type' cleanly separates it from publish_event and the other delivery-related siblings.

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 makes the when clear: send right now, one event, no queue and no retry, synthetically marked so receivers can distinguish it. It never names the alternative (publish_event) explicitly for real traffic, so the exclusion is implied rather than routed.

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