Create a webhook subscription

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld. The description adds material context beyond them: the confirm:true rejection behavior, required scopes, data sensitivity (redacted), and workspace override mechanics. It does not explain delivery behavior or rate limits, but the added operational detail is substantial.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, followed by compact labeled lines for operation, scopes, idempotency, side effect, and workspace. Nearly every line carries actionable information, with only 'Does not require idempotency' partially restating an annotation.

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 not be documented, and the description covers auth, side-effect confirmation, and workspace scoping for a 4-param nested-object tool. It is nearly complete, though it omits what the created subscription returns or default workspace behavior context.

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 75% (near the 80% baseline) and the description of workspaceId/workspaceSlug as overrides duplicates the schema text. The confirm gate is meaningfully explained, but body fields such as targetUrl and eventTypes receive no description-level elaboration.

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 and resource ('Create an outbound webhook subscription') that unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling list/update/delete/test_delivery operations. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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?

Provides operational prerequisites (required scope webhooks:write, OAuth scope luca:full, workspace override) and the confirm:true gate, which implies usage conditions. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings like luca_webhooks_test_delivery or luca_webhooks_subscriptions_update, and no explicit exclusion guidance is given.

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