Create PhishFort Webhook

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate it's a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds behavioral context about the one-time secret being saved locally and not returned, which is valuable but does not fully explain side effects, authorization, or idempotency nuances.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is useful, but it could be improved by adding more detail about parameters without becoming wordy.

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?

Given the complexity (9 params, 6 required, output schema exists but not detailed), the description is insufficient. It lacks information on return values, error states, and how to use the secret, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without additional knowledge.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions the secret behavior, not explaining any of the 9 parameters (url, events, approval_id, etc.). This leaves parameter meaning entirely to the agent's inference.

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 it creates a webhook subscription and mentions the one-time secret behavior. It distinguishes from sibling webhook operations (list, update, delete, etc.) but could be more explicit about the context of PhishFort webhooks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites for using approval_id/approval_phrase, or when to prefer this over other webhook operations.

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