新增 webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does a solid job: it gives the exact verb/resource, required versus conditional parameters, the unified response shape, and clarifies that data contains the new webhook ID. It does not disclose authentication needs or duplicate/error behavior, but the main side effect and response contract are clearly stated.

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 dense but compact, front-loading the endpoint and creation intent, then covering request parameters and response in a logical order. It could be improved with clearer bullet/list formatting, but every piece of information earns its place.

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 operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: endpoint, required fields, type enum, conditional custom-type fields, and unified response/data format are all present. It lacks explicit guidance on authentication or when to use edit instead, but these are minor for invoking the tool correctly.

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 value by marking the four required fields explicitly, enumerating the webhookType values, and adding the conditional detail that httpMethod/headers/body are needed only for type 12 (custom), which is more specific than the schema's '仅自定义类型需要'.

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 the HTTP endpoint and an explicit verb+resource: 'POST /open/webhook/add - 新增 webhook 配置' (add webhook configuration). This clearly states the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_webhook_edit, open_webhook_delete, and open_webhook_list.

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 intended use is implied by '新增 webhook 配置' and the list of required fields, so an agent can infer this is for creating a new webhook. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over open_webhook_edit/open_webhook_delete, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites such as token/auth requirements.

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