set_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a key operational constraint: this is preview-first and apply is currently unavailable. That is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it omits other important traits such as whether the tool mutates state, what a preview returns, whether idempotency or tokens are required, and how the many parameters affect behavior.

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 with no filler and front-loads the preview-first positioning. It is structurally clean and easy to parse, though it is arguably too terse for a 10-parameter tool.

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 10 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough to safely guide invocation. It provides one critical caveat but leaves parameter behavior, return semantics, and sibling selection entirely unaddressed.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does not mention a single parameter, mode, default, or constraint. An agent gets no semantic guidance beyond raw schema types and enum values.

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 identifies the tool as a 'preview-first replacement for the deprecated immediate webhook write,' which gives some sense of its domain and relationship to a prior behavior. However, it never states a clear verb+resource (e.g., 'previews webhook changes' or 'sets webhook configuration') and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as upsert_webhook or remove_webhook. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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 implies this tool is for preview rather than immediate application, and warns that 'Apply remains unavailable until its domain adapter and canary are complete.' That is useful usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over upsert_webhook, nor a clear statement of prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is only implied.

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