register_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one meaningful behavior: 'If you pass an app (registered name), the webhook only receives events from that app.' However, it doesn't disclose side effects such as replacing an existing webhook, authentication requirements, or what the response contains, so transparency is partial.

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, both useful: the first states the operation and channel scope, and the second adds the app-filtering condition. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 setup/registration tool with five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many related siblings, the description is too thin. Missing pieces include channel/target_url validation expectations, token/config meaning, return values, and which sibling to prefer for verification/list/trigger tasks.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It explains the effect of 'app' and implies target_url from 'webhook' and channel from the examples, but token and config are entirely unexplained. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 first sentence uses a clear verb and resource: 'Register an app webhook', with channel examples (Telegram setWebhook, WhatsApp, Stripe). This clearly states the operation and object. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from webhook-related siblings like list_webhooks or verify_facebook_webhook, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 direct guidance on when to call this tool instead of alternatives such as trigger_webhook, list_webhooks, or verify_facebook_webhook. The only conditional is about passing an app, which is parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance. Usage is therefore only implied by the verb 'Register'.

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