Create Fathom Webhook

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation, the description adds crucial details: webhooks use HMAC-SHA256 signatures, the secret is only shown once upon creation, webhooks must return 2xx status to acknowledge receipt, and the tool returns specific webhook details. This provides valuable operational context not captured in 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 well-structured and efficiently organized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides parameter details, return values, examples, and important notes. Each section serves a clear purpose with no redundant information. The formatting with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Notes) makes it easy to parse.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It explains what the tool does, all parameters, return values with their purpose, practical examples, and important operational notes about security and acknowledgment requirements. This gives the agent everything needed to correctly invoke and understand the tool's behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It explains what 'triggered_for' values represent in practical terms (types of recordings), provides examples of parameter usage, and clarifies that 'include_*' parameters control what content appears in the payload. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 purpose with specific verb ('create') and resource ('webhook'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for receiving real-time notifications when meetings are processed. The first sentence explicitly states what the tool does: 'Create a webhook to receive real-time notifications when meetings are processed in Fathom.'

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to receive real-time notifications when meetings are processed) and mentions the sibling tool 'fathom_delete_webhook' indirectly through the return value note about using the ID for deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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