Register Sign-Ingress Webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context annotations don't carry — the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint path — but omits delivery semantics: whether the URL must be verified, whether repeated registrations create duplicate subscriptions (relevant given idempotentHint=false), and whether a webhook ID or secret is returned.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: the trigger condition leads, followed by compact bracketed metadata that is easy to scan. The bracket blocks are slightly schema-redundant ([Required: url] duplicates the schema) but cost little space.

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 needn't be spelled out. Still, for a stateful subscription-creating tool with no parameter documentation, the description should say what the delivered payloads look like, whether the URL is verified, and how to manage or remove the subscription afterward — a real gap given idempotentHint=false.

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 0% for the single `url` parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not — '[Required: url]' merely restates the schema's required array. It never explains that this is a callback endpoint the service will POST event payloads to, nor any constraint beyond what the schema already enforces (uri format, 2048 max length).

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 states the trigger event ('Fires when any tracked planet ingresses a new sign') but never states the action the tool performs — registration of a webhook subscription — leaving the agent to infer it from the title and the POST endpoint line. Among a dozen sibling webhook tools (astroway_webhooks_subscribe, astroway_stream_ingress, astroway_webhooks_transit_trigger), nothing distinguishes this one from the related ingress-subscription options.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as astroway_webhooks_subscribe (generic subscribe) or astroway_stream_ingress (streaming variant). The metadata blocks give endpoint and cost but no decision context for the agent.

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