Manage webhook endpoints

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and read-write behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds valuable extras: the call 'never spends credits' and the event-driven wake-up behavior. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences carry the full payload: operations, credit cost, and usage context. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 rich schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is complete. It adds the missing contextual piece—when and why to use webhooks—without leaving an agent guessing about how to invoke it.

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 schema already documents all parameters meaningfully. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond framing the events as 'bulk-job completion' events. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not degrade or confuse parameter understanding.

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 clear verb set ('list, create, update, delete or test') and a specific resource ('webhook endpoints for bulk-job completion'). It fully distinguishes this tool from all siblings, none of which manage webhooks, so an agent can immediately identify its 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: in scheduled/unattended workflows instead of long polling, with the rationale 'register once, then let the completion event wake your job up.' This is concrete usage guidance that names an alternative pattern and the condition favoring this tool.

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