Prepare webhook change

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the dry-run nature (no actual changes) and that the output is a hash for commitment. It does not detail error behavior or idempotency, but the annotation already covers read-only safety.

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 two-sentence description is concise but omits vital parameter semantics, making it too brief for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. The structure front-loads the key 'Dry-run' concept, but the lack of parameter info undermines conciseness.

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 description is incomplete for the tool's complexity: 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no mention of error cases or parameter details. It only partially covers the return value (operationHash) and omits essential usage context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and no parameter descriptions in the description, the agent receives no guidance on the meaning or format of body, method, reason, or webhookId. This is a critical gap given the tool has four parameters.

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 tool performs a dry-run of create, update, or delete operations on webhook subscriptions, and that it returns an operationHash for later commitment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like corpay_list_webhooks and corpay_commit_prepared_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 term 'Dry-run' explicitly signals a preview mode before committing changes, which guides the agent to use this tool for testing rather than direct modification. The mention of 'operationHash to commit' implies a follow-up step, though it does not name the sibling commit tool explicitly.

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