Create a webhook

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

The description adds a useful behavioral constraint—six webhooks per company maximum—and notes that the API enforces this with an error. Annotations already signal this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the added quota context is helpful but not extensive.

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 short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the quota constraint in the second sentence. There is no padding or redundancy, and every word contributes useful information.

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 straightforward create operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and a key limitation. It does not explain when to use this versus update_webhook, but the schema and annotations handle most operational details.

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 schema already documents endpoint and description, and eventTypes is covered by its enum values. The description's phrase 'receive events' broadly aligns with eventTypes but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Register' with the resource 'an HTTPS endpoint to receive events,' making it clear this tool creates a webhook. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhooks, update_webhook, and delete_webhook without needing to open the schema.

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 intended use case is implied: use this tool when you need an HTTPS endpoint to receive events. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention conditions like updating an existing webhook.

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