webhook_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about idempotency keys and HMAC-SHA256 signatures, but it does not disclose the return value, error behavior, or side-effect nature beyond 'send', nor does it mention requirements like authentication or rate limits. This is a moderate level of transparency, not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope, followed by two supporting capabilities. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or what happens after invocation. It does neither. It also does not mention behavior when no webhooks match the event type or the possibility of asynchronous delivery. While the tool is relatively simple, this missing return/error context makes it partially incomplete.

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 repeats the idempotency key purpose already in the schema and adds mention of HMAC-SHA256 signatures, but this does not add meaning to the individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The added signing context is more about behavior than parameter semantics.

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 ('Send') and clearly states the resource ('all registered webhooks matching the event type'). It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool webhook_register, which is about registration rather than sending.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to trigger a notification to webhooks based on an event type. It implies the alternative of registering webhooks via webhook_register but does not explicitly name it or provide exclusions. Still, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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