Webhooks Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds the HTTP verb/path and the scope requirement, which is real context, but it omits whether duplicate subscriptions are rejected, whether unreachable URLs are validated, and the outcome/return of the subscription.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by HTTP path, scope requirement, and API version — no redundant prose. Slightly terse in that the most actionable caveats are absent rather than the text being bloated.

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?

No output schema exists, so the agent would benefit from knowing what a successful subscription returns (e.g., an id needed later for webhooks_update/_delete) and whether duplicate or invalid subscriptions fail. Prerequisites are covered, so the definition is workable but not whole.

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 url, event, and additional_fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond that (the scope hint tied to the event entity), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Subscribe an HTTPS URL to a store event," which clearly separates creation from the sibling read/mutate tools (tiendanube_webhooks_get, _list, _update, _delete). It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the create semantics are unmistakable.

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?

Supplies prerequisite context (required scope depends on the event's entity, none for app/* and GDPR events; API version 2025-03), which helps an agent decide it can call this tool. However, it never states when to prefer webhooks_update vs creating a new subscription, or what to do if a subscription for that URL/event already exists.

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