webhook_add_signatures

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits such as what files get modified, side effects, or prerequisites. It only states that HMAC signature generation and verification are added, without explaining the impact on the project or what an agent should expect after invocation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Pro:' prefix is slightly extraneous and unexplained, but otherwise there is no verbose filler.

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 tool with only four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough high-level context to understand what the tool does. It lacks behavioral and side-effect detail, but no essential parameter information 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reinforcing the security/HMAC context, but the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a concrete action: adding HMAC signature generation and verification for webhook security. It is specific enough to be distinguished from generic webhook sender/receiver tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with reqsign-related or other webhook 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like webhook_generate_sender, webhook_generate_receiver, or reqsign_generate_hmac. The 'Pro:' prefix hints at a plan restriction but is not explained.

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