Test Webhook

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent), the description adds valuable behavioral detail: asynchronous delivery, typical latency under a minute, the ACTIVE prerequisite, and how to confirm success. It does not explain why the tool is flagged destructive, though sending a test event is comparatively benign.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite and post-call verification. No wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what happens after invocation and how to verify the result. Complete for a single-parameter test trigger.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics of 'id'. The description does not add further detail about the id, but none is needed given full coverage.

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 ('send a webhook.test event to an endpoint') and its intent (confirm reachability and signature verification). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like resend_webhook and sandbox_trigger_webhook.

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 a clear prerequisite ('the endpoint must be ACTIVE') and a verification follow-up (check last_success_date via get_webhook). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as resend_webhook or sandbox_trigger_webhook, but the context is otherwise actionable.

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