Scaffold a webhook receiver

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

With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true already supplied, the description still adds meaningful behavior: it returns files for the caller to write and explicitly states 'the server never writes to disk', which reconciles the word 'Generate' with the read-only annotation. It also discloses the security-relevant detail of HMAC verification over the raw body and the immediate-200 response contract.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence where each clause carries new information — artifact type, platform, signature scheme, response contract, test generation, and the no-disk-write constraint. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers the generation contract and the fact that nothing is persisted. The only gap is routing guidance relative to scaffold-oauth-callback and confirmation of whether event names must come from lookup-webhook-event.

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% and both parameters (dir, events) are already documented there, including the default for dir and the pointer to lookup-webhook-event. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource+platform: 'Generate an Express (TypeScript) webhook receiver for Tiendanube / Nuvemshop', then enumerates what the generated artifact contains (HMAC verification, immediate 200, one case per event, node:test). This clearly separates it from search-docs / lookup-* siblings and from scaffold-oauth-callback.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs a webhook receiver skeleton. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the closest alternative, scaffold-oauth-callback, nor a statement that event names should first be resolved via lookup-webhook-event (that hint lives only in the schema).

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