manus_webhook_create

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

The description discloses critical behavior not captured in annotations (which are absent): a test request is sent before activation and the endpoint must return 2xx within 10 seconds. This goes beyond the basic registration purpose and sets clear expectations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: first states purpose, second adds behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 covers purpose, usage, parameter constraints, and behavioral quirks. However, it omits the return value on success or failure behavior, which would be useful for an agent. Given the simple nature (single parameter, no output schema), it is mostly complete.

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?

The description adds meaning to the single 'url' parameter by specifying it must be an HTTPS webhook URL and detailing the test request constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is significant, though it could be more explicit about URL format requirements.

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 tool's purpose: registering an HTTPS webhook URL for task_created and task_stopped events. It uses specific verbs ('Register') and resource ('webhook URL'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like manus_webhook_delete and manus_webhook_list.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: to receive task_created and task_stopped events via webhook. It implies that no other tool serves this purpose, providing clear guidance without needing explicit alternatives.

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