Create a webhook

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

Annotations provide no destructive/read-only hints, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the API returns a signing secret once and that it must be stored to verify payloads. This adds critical behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, required fields, and a critical behavioral note about the signing secret. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

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?

With all 3 parameters required and no output schema, the description covers the creation flow adequately: required fields, event selection guidance, and post-creation secret handling. It lacks error cases or limitations, but is sufficient for an agent.

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%, and the description adds meaning: it restates that name and url are required, and it explains that events selects event types, advising to call list_webhook_event_types for available types. This enriches the parameter understanding.

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 'Create a webhook subscription' and lists the required fields (name, url, events). This verb+resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhooks, update_webhook, delete_webhook, and test_webhook.

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 implicitly tells when to use: when setting up a webhook to receive events. It specifies requirements and hints at a post-creation action (store signing secret). It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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