register_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the call returns a webhook_secret visible only once, that the caller must save it, and that the same value is used for two listed signature headers. It does not mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, or response shape, but the critical side effects are transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, with the critical one-time-secret warning placed at the end. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter registration tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, the alternative, and the required post-call action (saving the secret). It could also mention whether registering replaces an existing webhook, but the essential information for a first call is present.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter with a URI format, so the semantic burden is small. The description clarifies the URL is for this profile and is used to receive pushed events, but it does not add constraints such as HTTPS requirements or public reachability. This is adequate but not compensating beyond the schema.

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 ('Register'), a specific resource (a webhook URL for this profile), and the effect (Agenzax pushes new-session/new-message events). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_pending_events by framing the webhook as a polling alternative.

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?

Names the alternative tool, list_pending_events, and clearly states the trade-off: register a webhook instead of polling. It does not explicitly state when not to register or conditions like multiple webhooks, so it falls just short of an explicit exclusion.

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