beaconed_webhooks_create

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

The description adds a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the signing secret is returned only once and must be stored securely. This is valuable because it warns the agent that the secret cannot be retrieved later. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like side effects or response contents, though the annotations already indicate it is not idempotent and not destructive.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource. Every word earns its place: it states the action, the endpoint, and the critical one-time secret warning with no unnecessary 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 simple create tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the most important gotcha (secret appears once). However, since there is no output schema, the agent might need to know the response shape (e.g., webhook ID, status). The description still leaves that implicit, so it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'url' and 'events' parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating 'create'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 'create a new webhook subscription' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like webhooks_list, webhooks_get, webhooks_update, and webhooks_delete. The HTTP method and endpoint are also stated, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 implies the tool is for creating a new subscription, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions like 'do not use if you already have a webhook' or point to webhooks_list for existing subscriptions. The context is implied rather than spelled out.

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