growsurf_create_campaign_webhook

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond the sparse annotations: secret is write-only and never returned, and campaignId defaults to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID when omitted. This provides useful context for invocation and security. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful insight.

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?

The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, covering the essential parameter behaviors and default behavior in a compact, well-structured manner.

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?

For a create-webhook tool, the description covers the required payloadUrl, events subscription semantics, secret signing behavior, and campaign targeting. It omits details about isEnabled and potential error conditions, but given the output schema exists and annotations carry little weight, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is only 40%, but the description compensates by explaining payloadUrl is required, events list semantics (omit to subscribe to none), and secret's write-only nature. It also confirms campaignId default. The only parameter not mentioned is isEnabled, which remains bare, but the majority of parameters are clarified.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a webhook') and the resource ('to your GrowSurf program'). It distinguishes from siblings by the verb 'add' (create) versus update/delete/list, but does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 description provides parameter usage details, such as payloadUrl being required and events semantics, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like growsurf_update_campaign_webhook or growsurf_delete_campaign_webhook. The intended use case is implied by the create nature, but not explicitly stated.

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