Create Webhook

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent). The description adds genuine value beyond them: the secret is write-only and used for HMAC signing via the GrowSurf-Signature header, and omitting events subscribes the webhook to no events. It omits error/retry or rate-limit behavior, so not a full 5.

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 compact sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter-specific notes. No filler, though the parameter sentences are dense and a slightly more scannable structure would help.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the required parameter, the non-obvious write-only secret, and the campaign targeting default. The only material gap is the unexplained isEnabled flag.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it clarifies payloadUrl is required, explains events semantics including the omit case, expands on secret's write-only signing role, and documents campaignId's fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. Only isEnabled is left unexplained, keeping it from a 5.

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+resource: 'Add a webhook to your GrowSurf program.' An agent can readily distinguish this from the sibling list/update/delete/test webhook tools based on the verb 'Add'. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Provides operational guidance (payloadUrl required, omitting events subscribes to nothing, targeting campaignId vs GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID default), which implies when and how to call it. However, it never routes between this and sibling tools like update_campaign_webhook or test_campaign_webhook, nor states prerequisites or exclusions.

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