impreza_git_webhook_connect

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. Discloses key behaviors: token is discarded after use ('never stored'), refusal if already connected, and for manual mode the response returns a one-time webhook token. Also specifies the exact conditions for success (custom deployment with specific attributes).

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 longer than ideal but every sentence contributes meaningful information. It is well-structured with clear sections for the two modes, prerequisites, and error conditions. A minor reduction in verbosity might improve conciseness, but the current structure is highly effective.

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 the complexity of two modes, provider-specific instructions, prerequisites, and error handling, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use each mode, what to expect from the response, and when to use an alternative tool. No output schema exists, so the description compensates by detailing the response content.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions), but the description adds significant value: explains the optional github_pat for GitHub one-click flow, provides a link for PAT generation, and clarifies that omitting it triggers the manual/generic flow. Also reiterates the deployment_id requirement with specific format and constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Wire up auto-deploy: connect a push webhook so every push to the deployment's tracked branch triggers a redeploy.' It specifies the verb (connect) and resource (deployment's webhook), and distinguishes from siblings like impreza_git_webhook_disconnect and impreza_git_webhook_status.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Works with ANY provider against one per-deployment secret.' Elaborates on two modes (GitHub one-click vs manual/generic) with clear prerequisites: 'Only works on custom deployments created with mode=dockerfile and a git_url source. Refuses if already connected (call disconnect first to re-wire).' This includes when-not-to-use and mentions the alternative tool (impreza_git_webhook_disconnect).

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