Kooperativa: create monitor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure, and it does so excellently. It states that Kooperativa sends a signed POST, requires HTTPS, enumerates monitored event types, and warns that the webhook_secret is displayed only once at creation time.

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 three sentences, tightly written, with the core purpose front-loaded and critical caveats (HTTPS requirement and one-time secret) placed immediately after. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly: what events are monitored, how delivery works, the callback constraint, and the key return artifact (webhook_secret). No critical operational detail appears missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful extra semantics: webhook_url must be HTTPS, subject_url refers to a professional profile or company URL, and the events parameter is clarified with concrete examples per entity type.

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 ('Subscribe to change events') and the resource ('professional profile or company URL'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_monitors or delete_monitor through the creation-specific webhook behavior and one-time secret disclosure.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to receive change notifications for monitored profiles or companies via a webhook. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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