Send Test Webhook

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

Annotations already flag readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false. The description adds real context beyond that: it clarifies the event is 'live' (not a dry run), discloses the 400 error when no events are enabled, and states it returns both the mock payload and the receiving endpoint's response. It does not cover auth/permission requirements, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then optional-parameter behavior, then output. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct fact.

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 the return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description is nearly complete for a 3-param tool, missing only explicit permission/scope requirements for hitting a live external endpoint.

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 33% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for two of three params: `event` is optional and defaults to the webhook's first enabled event, and `campaignId` falls back to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. `webhookId` (the required param) is left to its self-explanatory name and an undescribed schema entry, so it is not fully compensated.

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 and resource ('Send a live test event to a webhook') and scopes it to the GrowSurf program's stored URL and secret. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as growsurf_create_campaign_webhook or growsurf_webhook_normalize, which do not send test events.

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?

Explains the operational context: it fires a live event using the stored URL/secret, with `event` optionally selecting the simulated type. It gives defaulting behavior and the 400 failure condition when no events are enabled, but never names an alternative tool or an explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion.

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