webhooks_create

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

Annotations provide only basic hints (not read-only, open world), but the description adds crucial behaviors: the response includes the token and instructs to store it as a secret, webhooks_get omits the token, and untrusted_name is separately fenced. These are valuable disclosures beyond the annotations and are consistent with them.

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 well-structured with bold section headings, concise bullet-like lines, and no filler. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, exclusion, return value, security note, and token behavior are all covered without redundancy.

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 fully covers when to use, when not to use, return value, security handling, and relationship to webhooks_execute and webhooks_get. With complete schema coverage and an output schema present, this description leaves no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptive comments for all four parameters (e.g., channel_id pattern, name maxLength, avatar nullability). The description does not add input parameter details beyond the schema; its mention of 'name' relates to the response, not the parameter. Baseline of 3 applies given full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Create a new webhook attached to a channel,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from webhook execution, modification, and message-sending siblings. It also adds concrete use-case context (automation endpoint) that reinforces its purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Provision an automation endpoint') and when NOT to use ('Sending one-off bot messages → messages_send'), directly naming the alternative tool. Also provides a follow-up workflow hint that the token is needed for webhooks_execute, giving clear contextual guidance.

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