sys_webhook

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

It discloses two important behavioral traits: the operation is a state-changing write and it requires confirmation. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not explain the confirmation flow, side effects, or failure behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, resource, and a critical caveat in very few words.

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?

This is a write tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a confirmation flow, yet the description only says 'requires confirmation.' An agent cannot determine how to supply confirmation fields, what preconditions exist, or what response to expect.

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 0%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. 'Enable/disable' maps only implicitly to the required onoff enum, while user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id are completely unexplained despite being central to the stated confirmation requirement.

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 states a precise verb ('Enable/disable') and a specific resource ('webhook'), making the operation unambiguous. Although it does not name a sibling, no other sibling tool covers webhook toggling, so the agent can distinguish it from the large sibling set.

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 the use case (when you need to turn the webhook on or off) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It also omits how the required confirmation is obtained or initiated.

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