Test Webhook Delivery

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds the payload contents plus the non-obvious side effect that the result is recorded in failure_count / last_status_code — important because a failed test could skew health metrics. It omits rate-limit or counting/auth requirements, keeping it just under a 5.

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: what it does, why you'd use it, and its recorded side effect — all front-loaded with no filler. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations handle safety. Given the tool makes an outbound call to a user-registered URL, a brief note on failure modes (timeout, endpoints without signature verification) would round it out, but nothing essential is missing.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the schema already says 'Webhook id, as returned by GET /v1/webhooks'), so the schema carries the burden. The description never mentions `id` at all, so there is no value added beyond the structured field — baseline 3.

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 (fire a synthetic delivery), the target (the registered URL for this webhook id), and the exact payload shape. The word 'synthetic' and the `{ "test": true }` payload clearly distinguish it from a real event delivery, which matters against siblings like astroway_webhooks_subscribe and astroway_webhooks_id.

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?

'Useful when validating endpoint signature handling' gives a concrete use case, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g., that it is not a substitute for a real event or for re-sending a failed delivery), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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