grupr_register_webhook

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: HTTPS POST delivery, HMAC-SHA256 signing when a secret is set, and upsert semantics. It stops short of detailing failure modes, retries, or what happens to the previous webhook on upsert, but the provided details are meaningful and accurate.

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 compact—two sentences—and front-loaded with the primary purpose (register a webhook URL). The second sentence provides protocol and behavior details without unnecessary fluff. Every clause earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, no output schema, and a well-defined parameter set, the description is fairly complete. It explains the delivery mechanism, signing, and upsert behavior. A minor gap is the lack of explanation about what 'grupr events' are or the expected response, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add a little semantic context by explaining how the 'secret' parameter is used for HMAC signing, which reinforces the schema's own description. However, this is not substantial additional meaning beyond what the schema already communicates, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('HTTPS webhook URL') and clearly scopes it to 'this agent'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'Upsert semantics — one webhook per agent', which implies this is for registering/updating rather than deleting (grupr_delete_webhook) or message operations (grupr_poll_messages, grupr_send_message).

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: to receive grupr event POSTs to an HTTPS URL. It implicitly contrasts with polling tools by describing server-initiated pushes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use grupr_poll_messages instead for pull-based retrieval'), but the context is strong enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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