teamleader_webhooks_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a webhook is registered, with no mention of required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., whether existing registrations are overwritten), idempotency, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action. It includes useful examples without unnecessary detail. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 2 parameters, but the description omits important context such as what the API returns upon success (e.g., a webhook ID), whether duplicate registrations are handled, and any authentication prerequisites. This is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps that an agent may need for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters completely: url is an HTTPS URL for POST requests, and types is a list of event types with an example. The description's example of event types duplicates what is in the schema, adding no new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the action verb 'Register' and identifies the resource as a webhook URL for specific event types. Concrete examples ('deal.created', 'invoice.booked') are provided, making the purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like teamleader_webhooks_list and teamleader_webhooks_unregister, since registration is a distinct 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 clearly implies the tool is for subscribing to webhook events, and the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use it for setting up webhooks. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when to use list or unregister instead). No exclusions are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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