bridge_create_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states 'Create a webhook endpoint' without mentioning what happens on creation (e.g., whether it's immediately active, if a webhook secret is returned, or any persistence details). This lacks depth for a mutating operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource, making it highly concise.

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 simple create tool with fully described parameters, the description is largely complete in context. It could mention the return value or side effects, but the core purpose is clear, and the schema fills in parameter details. Given no output schema, a bit more context on response would help, but it's not essential.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, but the schema already explains url, event_epoch, idempotency_key, and event_categories adequately.

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 the resource 'webhook endpoint', and adds the purpose 'to receive Bridge events'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_customer or create_wallet, which target different resource types.

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 creating webhooks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like list_webhooks. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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