Configure where a site sends form submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses HMAC-SHA256 signing, secret issuance only on first config or rotate, idempotency, and the email fallback. Also states the tool is free, covering cost behavior.

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, starting with the core purpose, then layering critical caveats in order of importance. Every sentence contributes new information, and the IMPORTANT callout highlights the most critical action for the user.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, security signing, secret lifecycle, idempotency, fallback behavior, and cost. The key response field (secret_issued) is explicitly mentioned, which is essential for correct usage.

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 already covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the secret_issued response behavior tied to rotate_secret and idempotency with the same URL, going beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 configures the URL to which Warpweb sends POSTs when a form is submitted. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on site creation, refresh, and domain management.

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?

Explains that unconfigured sites fall back to email, and that most API customers want the webhook for structured JSON plus verification. This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it doesn't name an explicit alternative tool beyond the email fallback.

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