webhook_create_rule

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does the most important thing by declaring 'Write operation', which tells the agent this mutates persistent state, and it notes the dry-run alternative. However, it says nothing about idempotency, whether the created rule is immediately active, or what authorization is needed for a webhook-forwarding rule.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its write nature, then the workflow hints. Slightly fragmented but every sentence contributes information; no 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description plus full schema coverage covers the input contract and the recommended workflow. The only gap is behavioral depth for a mutation tool lacking annotations.

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 all five parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds useful semantic detail for event_type ('*' matches all, example 'candidate_stage_change') but does not extend meaning for action_url, filter_field, or filter_value beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Create a webhook routing rule') that cleanly separates it from the sibling mutation tools webhook_update_rule and webhook_delete_rule. The second sentence names the operation class. An agent can identify this tool's function without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to webhook_list_events for enumerating event types and to webhook_test_rule for a dry-run after creation, establishing a clear workflow context. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't state when NOT to use this tool (e.g. when a rule already exists) or any prerequisites such as required permissions.

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