create_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. The description adds real context beyond them: outbound side effects to an external endpoint, a required user-confirmation gate, and the fact that the signing secret is returned only once in the response. It stops short of describing delivery retry behavior or whether an inactive webhook still counts as created.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, safety protocol, and return-value caveat. The safety-critical confirmation instruction is placed prominently before any other detail.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential risks and notes that the signing secret appears once in the response. Minor gaps remain around default event behavior and what the response contains besides the secret, but the agent has enough to call it safely.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents url, events defaults, is_active default, workspace_id scoping, and the confirm const. The description reinforces the significance of url/workspace/events/is_active and the confirmation meaning of confirm, but adds little syntax or constraint detail the schema lacks.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a webhook subscription') and scopes it to post/account/analytics events, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly name siblings like manage_webhook or list_webhooks, so the create-vs-manage boundary must be inferred from the name alone.

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?

Gives clear operational context: display target URL, workspace, events, and active state, then obtain explicit confirmation before calling. That is strong guidance for the moment of invocation, though it never states when to prefer this over manage_webhook for edits or how it relates to list_webhooks.

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