Set up a CRM's webhooks

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: the server auto-generates an idempotency key if omitted, the call is rejected without confirm:true, required OAuth scope and data sensitivity (redacted), and the workspace-override behavior. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail that helps an agent invoke it safely.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then lists operation, scopes, and safety requirements in a scannable structure with no filler prose. Minor redundancy between the 'Destructive' line and the confirm parameter description, but overall tight.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scopes, idempotency, the confirm gate, and workspace overrides. The one gap is the body payload semantics, which are left entirely to the schema.

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 67% and the schema already documents confirm, workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey, so the description largely restates those. It adds the nuance that the server generates a key if omitted, but says nothing about the body fields (enabled, targetUrl). Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Configure CRM provider webhook status') and the exact endpoint, which pins down the operation for a specific connection. It is clearly distinct from the general webhook subscription tools, but it never names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 useful prerequisites (required scopes, Idempotency-Key, confirm:true, workspace override) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like luca_webhooks_subscriptions_create or luca_integrations_crm_connections_create. Usage is implied by the endpoint rather than stated.

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