Test Webhook

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying that a synthetic test event is fired and a delivery result is returned. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral details like the default event type.

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 with two English sentences covering purpose and detail, plus a Spanish duplicate. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action. The bilingual repetition slightly reduces conciseness but is acceptable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete: it explains the action, the result, typical use cases, parameter options with examples, and includes example values. With full schema coverage, annotations, and output schema, no critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds examples for id ('wh_abc') and eventType ('invoice.paid') and states the default for eventType, providing more meaning than the schema alone.

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 the verb 'Fire a synthetic test event' and the resource 'webhook endpoint', and specifies the purpose of verifying reachability, signature validation, and TLS configuration. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like create_webhook, update_webhook, etc., by focusing on testing.

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?

It explains when to use this tool: to verify endpoint connectivity and configuration. It provides an example scenario. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for typical use.

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