Create a new AnyHook app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well: it discloses activation timing ('active immediately'), the non-obvious behavior that apps without destinations still log every event but deliver nowhere, and how to update destinations via PATCH. Minor gaps remain — no idempotency, rate-limit, or failure-mode information.

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 sentences in a logical order (what → return value → activation timing → conditional no-destination behavior), with no filler. The final sentence is long and carries an inline PATCH payload, but that payload is directly actionable and earns its place.

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 covers the critical return value (inbound URL), the activation semantics, and the edge behavior of the optional destinations parameter against a fully documented schema. The main gap is the absence of a full response shape, which matters more because there is no output schema, but the named return value is the one a caller actually needs.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a little semantic value by tying the optional destinations parameter to the inspect-only logging behavior, but it largely restates the parameter list the schema already documents.

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-resource pairing ('Create a new app') and enumerates its key inputs (name, provider source, destinations) plus its primary output (the inbound URL). This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling list tool anyhook_apps_list and from the event/inspection tools.

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 scenario of creating an app without destinations (inspect-only logging) is described, which implies a legitimate use case, and the follow-up PATCH for later delivery is given. However, no explicit guidance contrasts this tool against alternatives (e.g., anyhook_apps_list for listing, anyhook_quickstart for keys) and no exclusions are stated.

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