conduyt_create_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a critical trait: the signing secret is returned once and must be stored securely. However, it omits permissions required, rate limits, and whether the endpoint can later be modified or secret re-obtained.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads purpose and the critical secret warning; the second enumerates available events. Every element earns its place, and the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, one-time secret return, and event options. It lacks details about response payload (beyond the secret) and required permissions, but the key operational context is present.

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 adds meaningful detail beyond the schema by enumerating all supported event types for the 'events' parameter, which is more than the schema's example list provides.

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 ('Register a new webhook endpoint') and lists the events it can subscribe to, making the tool's role clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_webhook or list_webhooks, but 'new' implies creation.

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 usage by listing available events, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_webhooks, update_webhook, or delete_webhook. No explicit exclusions or routing guidance is provided.

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