Test Mail Webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it sends a test event, but does not mention whether this action has side effects, requires specific permissions, or is reversible. As it triggers an external request, the agent is left unaware of potential impacts or safety considerations.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool with a single parameter, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what happens when the test event is sent and what the expected outcome is. It only says 'send a test event', leaving ambiguity about the result, the nature of the event, and whether the action verifies configuration. For a low-complexity tool, this is under-specified.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (webhook_id) with a basic description 'Webhook ID'. The tool's description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format, origin, or constraints. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no additional value.

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: 'Send a test event to a webhook.' This uses a specific verb ('send') and identifies the resource (webhook) and the action's nature (test event). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mail_webhooks_list, mail_webhooks_create, and mail_webhooks_delivery_logs by focusing on testing, not management or retrieval.

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 implies usage: it is for testing a webhook by sending a test event. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this to verify a webhook configuration' or exclude cases where the webhook doesn't exist. The context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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