Trigger webhook

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context by noting that webhooks requiring authorization must include a write-enabled API key, and provides the HTTP endpoint. This goes beyond the structured metadata and clarifies the auth/reversibility nature of the call.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is slight redundancy between 'Trigger webhook' and 'Triggers an automation via a webhook,' but overall each sentence adds useful content (purpose, auth note, endpoint), making it efficient.

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 simple trigger operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirements, and endpoint. It does not explain return values or failure behaviors, but given the simplicity and schema richness, it is largely complete. It could mention how to obtain the token via listAutomationWebhooks, but that is not strictly necessary.

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%, so the schema fully documents token, device_ids, and additionalProperties. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does mention the endpoint which indirectly relates to the token parameter. Hence, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Triggers an automation via a webhook,' specifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like listAutomationWebhooks and showAutomationRun, and the endpoint further clarifies its function.

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 implies when to use the tool (to trigger automations) and provides a prerequisite about authorization headers for webhooks requiring them. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like listAutomationWebhooks or showAutomationRun, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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