create_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that webhooks receive POST requests and lists event types, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether creation is idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a specific list of event types. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter context but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return values. For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in operational understanding, such as how to verify successful creation or handle failures.

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 schema already documents all parameters (url, events, description). The description adds value by listing example event types (e.g., 'envelope.signed'), which provides context beyond the schema's generic description. However, it does not explain parameter interactions or constraints, so 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'create' and resource 'webhook', specifying its function to 'receive real-time notifications for envelope events'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_webhooks' or 'delete_webhook' by focusing on creation, and lists specific event types to clarify scope.

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 usage for real-time envelope event notifications but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like polling or other notification methods. It mentions event types but lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_webhooks' for monitoring existing webhooks.

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