marketplace_webhooks_create_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it says the call is deprecated but never covers auth/permission requirements, side effects of creating a webhook, or error behavior. Deprecation is one useful trait, but a mutating POST with a nested JSON:API body needs far more.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with [DEPRECATED], which is good. But the parenthetical '(POST /v1/marketplaceWebhooks)' is a pure restatement of the preceding path and wastes space, so it is efficient without being tight.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested-object body, the description offloads the essential body shape to an external OpenAPI reference rather than being self-contained. An agent gets deprecation status but not enough to call the tool confidently.

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 single 'body' parameter is already documented, and the description only echoes the schema by pointing to components.schemas.MarketplaceWebhookCreateRequest. It adds no syntax, field, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 identifies the operation mechanically as POST /v1/marketplaceWebhooks, which maps to 'create a marketplace webhook' and distinguishes it from the sibling delete/update tools. However it never explains semantically what a marketplace webhook is or what creating one accomplishes, so it is a restatement of the name rather than a stated 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?

The only usage signal is the [DEPRECATED] tag, which implies 'prefer something else,' but no alternative tool or migration path is named despite siblings like webhooks_create_instance existing. There is no statement of when this tool is or isn't appropriate.

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