Tạo webhook email

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond them: it requires an HTTPS endpoint and warns that a secret is issued once and must be stored in .env and not logged, which is the key operational behavior for a webhook-registration mutation.

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?

Very tight, front-loaded with the usage condition followed by the security caveat. The bilingual duplication adds redundancy but is a deliberate accessibility choice rather than filler.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential missing context: HTTPS requirement and one-time secret handling. It does not cover duplicate-registration behavior or rate limits, but nothing critical to a correct call is absent.

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 only 33% (only idempotency_key documented), so the description must carry some burden. It does imply the URL must be HTTPS and names the event categories (send/bounce), but leaves the other enum event types, the 1-8 item array bound, and retry semantics to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: register/subscribe an app to a webhook for email send and bounce events. An agent can distinguish it from mail_webhooks_list (read) and mail_webhook_test (test). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create/subscribe action is unambiguous.

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?

"Khi app cần nhận sự kiện gửi hoặc bounce" provides a clear trigger condition for when to use it. However, it gives no exclusions or alternatives — nothing routes the agent away from mail_webhook_test or mail_webhooks_list when those are the better fit.

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