Create Webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what a webhook is but does not disclose the behavior of the create operation itself—such as whether the webhook becomes active immediately, whether a secret or ID is returned, or any side effects or requirements beyond the URL and events. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the direct statement of purpose. The second sentence adds context about webhook behavior without unnecessary fluff. Every word 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?

The tool is simple with two required parameters and clear schema descriptions. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., webhook ID or signing secret) or any prerequisites like authentication or endpoint validation. It is adequately complete for a simple creation tool but has clear room for improvement.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example events (email.sent, email.delivered, email.bounced) that reinforce the enum values, but it does not provide any additional detail beyond what the schema already documents for endpoint and events. The contribution is marginal.

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 new webhook in Resend,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the tool's function and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-webhooks, get-webhook, update-webhook, and remove-webhook.

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 explains the use case by stating that webhooks receive notifications at a URL when events occur, giving context for when this tool would be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., using update-webhook for existing webhooks), so it lacks a clear when-not-to-use instruction.

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