Create Webhook

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new operational context that annotations cannot: the signing secret appears only in this response and must be persisted immediately. That is exactly the kind of one-shot-secret warning an agent needs. It misses a note on duplicate-endpoint behavior, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the most consequential fact (secret returned once, persist now) is placed where it will be read. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the one return value that matters for correct handling – the signing secret. It does not mention other returned fields such as the new webhook's id, which an agent would need for follow-up calls like get_webhook. For a simple 4-parameter create tool this is nearly complete.

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%, with url, events, spaceId, and description all documented in the schema including HTTPS and 400-on-invalid-event behavior. The description adds only the phrase "one or more events," which the schema's array type already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a webhook endpoint") plus the subscription scope ("subscribe it to one or more events"), which clearly separates it from list_webhooks, get_webhook, and delete_webhook. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb – an agent can infer this is for registering a new endpoint, and the sibling list makes the alternatives obvious. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. required permissions or space scoping rules), and no note on what to do if an endpoint for the same URL already exists.

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