⚠️ Enable webhook

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

The description discloses that this tool changes account settings and causes external event sending, aligning with destructiveHint=true. It adds context about security requirements and default confirmation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding critical information. The main purpose is front-loaded, and no redundant information is present.

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 the three parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, security, side effects, parameter details, and related tools thoroughly. An agent has enough to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: for 'url' it explains the exact construction requirement, for 'dryRun' it clarifies preview behavior and default, and for 'idempotencyKey' it details duplicate protection and conflict handling. All three parameters are well-covered.

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 uses a specific verb 'subscribes' and clearly identifies the resource: 'server's operator-configured receiver URL to webhook notifications (V3)'. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with messenger_get_subscriptions and messenger_post_webhook_unsubscribe.

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 provides explicit constraints: URL must match AVITO_MCP_WEBHOOK_PUBLIC_URL + path + secret, arbitrary destinations rejected, and confirmation required. It also mentions alternative tools for checking and disabling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus read-only alternatives.

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