webhook_validate

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 mentions supported algorithms and provider patterns but does not state what the tool returns on valid/invalid signatures, error handling, or any side effects. For a validation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Validate a webhook signature.' It wastes no words and immediately states the core purpose, then adds useful supporting details about algorithms and providers.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The schema covers parameter semantics well, but the description lacks crucial behavioral context such as return values and error behavior. The description plus schema is adequate for a basic understanding, but the absence of return-value information leaves a clear gap.

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 limited semantic value beyond the schema, such as noting built-in provider patterns that relate to the 'provider' parameter. It does not explain each parameter in detail, but the schema already covers that, so the score stays at the baseline.

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 tool's function: 'Validate a webhook signature.' It also specifies supported algorithms (HMAC-SHA256, HMAC-SHA1) and provider-specific patterns (Stripe, GitHub, Slack), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like webhook_generate_payload or webhook_send.

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 clear context: it's for validating webhook signatures. It implies when to use it (when a webhook signature must be checked) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tool names suggest related webhook operations, but no explicit exclusions are provided, so it falls 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.