Subscribe Page to Webhooks

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and no destructive/write-only flags. The description adds behavioral nuance: it explains the dual mode (subscribe or check), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 concise (two sentences plus arg list), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and well-structured. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and the dual-use scenario. It does not detail return values or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a response_format parameter, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The description lists the main parameters and provides examples for subscribed_fields (e.g., feed, messages). It also explains the special behavior of calling without subscribed_fields. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has a brief description for subscribed_fields. Schema coverage is 67% but description compensates well.

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 action ('subscribes') and resource ('webhook updates for a Facebook Page'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which primarily focus on reading, creating, or updating other resources.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to subscribe or check subscriptions). It includes a usage note: 'Call without subscribed_fields to check current subscriptions.' However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but given the sibling set, this is the only webhook subscription tool.

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