Sandbox Trigger Webhook

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: the sandbox API key requirement (`pk1_sb_…`), the endpoint-registration prerequisite, and the fact that deliveries are cryptographically signed. It does not reconcile the neutral 'testing' framing with destructiveHint=true (that firing a webhook can trigger side effects downstream), which is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the most decisive constraint ('SANDBOX ONLY') and then purpose, prerequisite, and auth in order. Three sentences with no filler, though it is denser than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter sandbox utility it covers the critical decision inputs: sandbox-only scope, API key type, endpoint prerequisite, and the event classes it can emit. With no output schema, a brief note on what the trigger returns (delivery id/status) would have closed the remaining gap.

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 both parameters (eventType enum, domain with default) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'ANY event type' and 'sample payload' phrasing adds only marginal meaning beyond that, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Fire a sample signed webhook event to your registered endpoints' is unambiguous about what happens. The 'SANDBOX ONLY' prefix implicitly separates it from non-sandbox webhook tools, but it never names the closest siblings (test_webhook, resend_webhook) that an agent would otherwise have to disambiguate against.

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?

Strong context: it states the scenario (testing your handler and HMAC signature verification), the unique value case (cron-driven events like `domain.expiring` that don't result from a single API call), and a prerequisite ('Register an endpoint first with the webhook tools'). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative tool, which keeps it out of the top band.

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