Send test webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the event is a TEST event, not a real customer-facing delivery, and the integration must be enabled. It doesn't say whether the test is logged as a delivery, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 short sentences with zero filler, leading with what the tool does and following with the one usage constraint. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, but this is a simple action tool and the annotations carry the safety profile; the description covers purpose, precondition, and the test-only nature. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the caller receives or how the test appears in delivery history.

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 project_id's optionality/format and webhook_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (sends) and resource (a TEST event to a webhook integration) plus the intent ('so the user can see it arrive'). It is distinguishable from siblings like retry-webhook-delivery and create-webhook-integration, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('The webhook must be enabled') and the intent (letting the user see an event arrive) implies the when-to-use case is verifying an integration works. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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