spraay_webhook_register

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds cost ($0.003 USDC) and data persistence in Supabase, but lacks details on idempotency, duplicate handling, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, output, and additional context (cost, persistence). No extraneous information, though could be slightly more structured.

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 output schema present, description need not detail return values, but it does mention webhook ID and HMAC secret. However, given the financial cost and stateful nature, additional context about prerequisites or error conditions would improve completeness.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the URL and events purpose with examples but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool registers a webhook endpoint for receiving real-time POST events, specifying the types of events (payments, escrows, etc.) and what is returned (webhook ID and HMAC secret). This distinguishes it from sibling webhook tools like list, delete, and test.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the cost and persistence are mentioned, there is no advice on when not to use it or conditions for re-registration. Given sibling tools exist for managing webhooks, usage context is missing.

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