surveymonkey_create_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that a webhook definition is created and that authorization is optional and sent in the callback header, which is useful behavioral info. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether the webhook is activated immediately, what the response contains, or any permission/rate-limit requirements. The 'Creates' verb and callback details give some transparency, but the lack of response/error context is a gap.

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 efficiently organized with a clear payload structure and a compact list of supported event types. Every part earns its place; the only minor inefficiency is that the supported event_types list could arguably be shortened or linked, but it is directly useful for constructing valid webhooks because the schema has no enums.

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?

The description is complete for constructing a call: all required payload fields, the object_type enum, object_ids semantics, and HTTPS subscription_url are specified. Since no output schema is present and annotations are absent, describing the response format would have been useful, but the description still provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. The supported event_types list also compensates for the missing enum definitions in the schema.

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 0%, and the payload schema is an open object with additionalProperties:true, so the description must fully compensate. It thoroughly documents the payload structure with each field, whether it is required, the enum for object_type, the object_ids list semantics, subscription_url HTTPS requirement, and the optional authorization header. This is exemplary compensation for a schema that otherwise provides no semantic information.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new webhook,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like surveymonkey_get_webhook, update_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhooks. The payload structure and supported event_types further clarify the 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 description implies when to use this tool: when creating a webhook, providing detailed payload requirements and supported event types. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the clarity of the payload definition and event list gives strong contextual guidance. Since siblings are list/get/update/delete, no explicit exclusion is necessary.

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