create_webhook_rule

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool mutates the production account and requires double-gating for safety. It also enumerates event types. However, it does not detail response behavior or error handling, limiting full transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose and safety warning. The events list is necessary but could be more concise. Overall, it is well-structured with no superfluous content.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It covers the safety mechanism and events, but leaves url and authorization_header unexplained. It is minimally complete but has gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by listing valid event values. But it omits descriptions for 'url', 'confirm', and 'authorization_header', leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 'Create a webhook rule.' and specifies the endpoint POST /webhook_rules, with a list of allowed events. This verb+resource combination distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like list, get, update, delete webhook rules.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Changes the real production account. Double-gated: requires DROPSCAN_ALLOW_WRITES=1 AND confirm=true.' This strongly advises caution and prerequisite conditions, though it stops short of stating when not to use or recommending alternatives.

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