create_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a valuable caution about the signing secret appearing in the response and advises secure storage – a genuinely useful non-obvious detail. However, it omits other behavioral traits like idempotency, permission requirements, or failure modes, so it only partially satisfies this dimension.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers the critical security note about the signing secret. Every word earns its place, making it well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 create tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it creates a subscription and discloses the most important response detail (signing secret). The absence of output schema is mitigated by this key response note. It could go further by mentioning the webhook ID or verification process, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage (url format, eventTypes enums, description label). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain how to choose eventTypes or what the url should be, but the schema already covers that.

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 opens with 'Create a PDFGate webhook subscription' – a specific verb and resource that unambiguously identifies the operation. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_webhook and delete_webhook, and the mention of the signing secret adds a concrete outcome, so an agent can grasp the tool's role without opening the 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that this is the go-to for subscribing to event notifications, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer get_webhook/delete_webhook. The usage is only implied by the verb 'create', which is minimal.

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