Create Webhook

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds context by specifying 'real-time notifications' and 'when events occur,' which clarifies the tool's reactive nature beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail potential side effects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on duplicate registrations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Register a webhook') and adds necessary context ('to receive real-time notifications when events occur on the platform'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 2 required), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and context but lacks details on output (no output schema) and behavioral nuances like error handling or event specifics. However, it suffices for a creation tool with good structured data support.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining event type options or secret usage specifics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Register a webhook') and the resource ('to receive real-time notifications when events occur on the platform'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dual_delete_webhook, dual_get_webhook, dual_list_webhooks, dual_test_webhook, and dual_update_webhook by focusing on creation rather than deletion, retrieval, listing, testing, or updating.

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 for setting up event notifications, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dual_update_webhook for modifications or dual_test_webhook for validation. It lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites, such as whether webhooks require specific permissions or platform configurations.

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