Send a test webhook event

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the `idempotentHint` annotation by stating 'Safe to repeat' (confirming idempotency) and explaining the test's purpose: confirming reachability and signature verification. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, idempotent, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the test's purpose but omits details about the response format; however, this is not critical for a test tool.

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% for the single parameter `webhook_id`, which has a schema description: 'The webhook id.' The tool description does not add further parameter details, so baseline score of 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 tool's action: 'Send a test event to a webhook’s endpoint' and its purpose: 'confirm it is reachable and your signature verification works.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like `delete_webhook`, `get_webhook`, and `update_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 implies when to use: after creating a webhook, to verify connectivity and signature verification. It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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