Create webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the return shape { endpoint, secret }, the one-time-only nature of the whsec_ secret (an irreversible behavior), how to verify deliveries, and the public-https / private-network constraint. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before firing a mutation it cannot undo.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and the event list, then the return contract, then the URL constraint. The event enumeration is long but is load-bearing information, not padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents the response object and the secret's one-time visibility, covers the https requirement, and names the verification path. Nothing essential for a correct first call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the enum names by explaining what each event actually delivers ('project.done (with every clip, share links and the zip)', 'clip.done (also re-renders)'). It does not add anything for the optional 'description' label, but the schema already covers that adequately.

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 and resource ('Subscribe a URL to events') and enumerates the exact event types it accepts. It also names the sibling it is not ('delete_webhook unsubscribes'), so an agent can place it in the webhook lifecycle without opening another 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?

'This is how a Zapier or Make app subscribes' plus the parenthetical pointing at delete_webhook as the inverse gives clear context and one named alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with update_webhook or rotate_webhook_secret, which are the closest ambiguous siblings for an agent that already has a webhook registered.

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