webhook_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses retry with exponential backoff, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention return values, error handling, or side effects. More context (e.g., whether it blocks, returns HTTP response) would improve transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant words. It efficiently covers the core purpose and a key feature (retry with exponential backoff).

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the main purpose and retry behavior, but lacks details about what the tool returns or how errors are surfaced. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by mentioning 'exponential backoff,' which clarifies the relationship between max_retries and base_delay_ms beyond their schema descriptions. It also highlights key parameters but mostly echoes schema info.

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 it sends a webhook payload to a URL, with explicit mention of customization options (headers, body, content-type). This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from siblings like webhook_generate_payload and webhook_validate.

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 this is the tool for actually sending webhooks, and the sibling tools serve clearly different purposes (generating, validating, debugging, retry scheduling). However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus 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.