Send a test webhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond that: required OAuth scopes, data sensitivity, idempotency key behavior with server fallback, mandatory confirm:true, and workspace override semantics. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs for a destructive, open-world mutation.

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 front-loaded with the tool action and then moves through operational constraints in a compact, structured way. Most lines earn their place, though a few pieces (e.g., destructive/confirm wording) partially duplicate the annotations and schema.

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?

Given the annotations, rich schema, and existing output schema, the description covers the critical constraints for calling this destructive, open-world tool safely: confirm requirement, idempotency handling, scopes, and workspace override. It does not need to explain return values, and its remaining gap is a lack of detail about what the queued test event does downstream.

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 80%, so the schema already documents confirm, idempotencyKey, workspaceId, and workspaceSlug. The description mostly restates those schema descriptions rather than adding new parameter meaning, and it does not explain the required body shape or enum values beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Queue a canonical test webhook event.' The Luca operation line adds the exact endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling webhook tools like deliveries_replay or events_replay.

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 for testing webhook delivery but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as replaying real deliveries or events. Required scopes and confirmation are operational prerequisites, not usage guidance. No explicit when-not conditions are provided.

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