create_webhook

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It merely states creation without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether existing webhooks are affected), auth requirements, or idempotency. For a create operation, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Very concise: two sentences covering purpose and required fields. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the action.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the description omits any behavioral or setup context (e.g., how to get the webhook URL, event type management). Considering the tool's complexity (nested object, enum options), more detail would improve completeness.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (url, description, subscribedEvents with enum). The description redundantly lists required fields ('url, events') but uses a different field name ('events' vs 'subscribedEvents'), which could confuse agents. It adds minimal value 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 states 'Create a webhook endpoint.' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes well from siblings like update_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhooks, indicating a specific creation action.

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?

No usage context or alternatives are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus other notification-related tools (e.g., create_alert_channel, create_notification_policy) or specify prerequisites or restrictions.

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