create_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does provide useful behavioral information: the registered webhook will trigger POST requests to the destination upon specified events. However, it does not disclose response/return behavior, idempotency, or any permission or webhook-limit constraints.

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?

One compact sentence states the action and the key behavioral consequence, with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple three-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, destination behavior, and event triggering. It lacks explicit success-response details, but this is not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the relationship between destination and the POST delivery, but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Inscreve') and resource ('webhook'), then states the observable effect: Kommo will send POST requests to the destination URL when specified events occur. This clearly distinguishes create_webhook from sibling tools like get_webhooks and delete_webhook.

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 purpose is explicit: use this to register a new webhook. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and no competing create-variant exists among siblings, so an agent can infer the correct time to use it.

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