coronium_set_webhook

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that setting the webhook triggers auto-swapping, specifies the POST payload fields (old_modem_id + new_modem_id), and explains how to disable via null/empty. This covers the core behavioral aspects, though it omits details like error handling or authentication.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Set or clear'). The second sentence adds essential detail about behavior and disabling without any filler, earning every word.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation, the triggering event, the payload, and the disabling path. It lacks details on the response format or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description of webhook_url, including the null option. The tool description echoes the null/empty behavior and adds context about the payload, but doesn't materially expand parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Set or clear the modem-lifecycle webhook' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from related tools like get_webhook by focusing on configuration, and explains the operational effect (auto-swap and JSON POST).

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 gives context on when this tool is relevant (when a modem dies) and the consequence (auto-swap and notification), implying its use for lifecycle automation. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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