create_webhook

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the signing secret is returned only once on creation and must be stored. Since no annotations are provided, this is essential context that helps the agent understand a one-time output. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as URL validation, rate limits, or what else the response contains, so it is not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the first front-loading the main action and the second adding a crucial one-time secret warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the most important output (the signing secret). It could mention the webhook ID or other response fields, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete and provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters ('url' and 'events'), so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not repeat or contradict anything either, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Register a webhook endpoint for delivery events.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_webhooks and delete_webhook by indicating the creation aspect, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 tool is used to set up webhooks for receiving delivery events, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is somewhat implied via the verb 'Register' and the reference to delivery events, but no clear alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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