wp_create_custom_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute one genuinely useful behavior: 'Secret is returned once on create,' which warns the agent to capture it immediately. But the confirm requirement merely restates the schema's own confirm description, and other creation behaviors (idempotency, failure modes, what happens in safe mode without confirm) are not disclosed.

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 zero filler, front-loaded with the primary action, and both sentences carry operational value (what it does, what to preserve, what to pass in safe mode). No wasted words.

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?

The core create action, a key return-value fact (secret shown once), and a precondition (safe mode confirm) are covered. But there is no output schema and no annotations, so more context is warranted: the full response shape, how to discover valid topics (sibling wp_list_webhook_topics exists), and error/edge cases are absent. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the secret-returned-once behavior, which concerns the operation's result rather than parameters, and restates the confirm condition already present in the schema. It does not add deeper per-parameter semantics such as topic format or URL validation.

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 names a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('custom MCP outbound webhook'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_create_form_webhook and wp_create_woocommerce_webhook via the 'custom' and 'MCP outbound' qualifiers. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 safe-mode condition ('confirm:true required when safe mode is on') gives a concrete precondition, and the secret-once note implies this is the right tool when a fresh secret is needed. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over form or WooCommerce webhook creates.

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