Resend Webhook

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the delivery is CLONED into a fresh attempt, the original event id is reused, and consumers deduping on X-Porkbun-Webhook-Id will treat it as the same event. The endpoint-existence/ACTIVE prerequisite is also 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the dedupe-critical behavior, then the precondition and use case. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics (clone, event-id reuse, endpoint liveness, replay-after-bug scenario). It omits what happens on failure when the endpoint is missing/inactive or whether the response returns the new delivery id, but these are minor 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% and there is only one parameter, whose meaning is fully documented in the schema ('delivery id to resend, from list_webhook_deliveries'). The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Re-queue a past webhook delivery to its endpoint') and distinguishes itself from siblings like test_webhook or get_webhook_delivery by describing the clone-and-replay behavior. An agent can tell it apart from other webhook tools without opening 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('after fixing a downstream bug to replay a delivery that previously FAILED') and a precondition ('endpoint must still exist and be ACTIVE'). It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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