send_to_endpoint

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds concrete behavior: duplicate idempotency keys return original delivery id, and it skips fan-out. Could mention error handling for missing endpoints, but output schema likely covers that.

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 concise sentences plus an example and usage guidance. Front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words, and efficiently uses example to demonstrate parameter usage.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description is complete: purpose, usage distinction, idempotency behavior, and example. The output schema covers return details, so no need to describe them.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining idempotency_key behavior (duplicate key returns original delivery id) and providing an example usage that clarifies how to pass endpoint_id and payload.

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?

Clearly states the tool sends a webhook directly to one endpoint, skipping event-type fan-out. Distinguishes from sibling trigger_event by specifying direct endpoint targeting vs event fan-out.

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 says when to use this tool (user names a specific endpoint) and when to use trigger_event (event type fan-out). Also advises using idempotency_key for safe retries.

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