set_phone_number_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool configures a webhook and that events trigger POSTs to the endpoint. It also explains the secret's optional role and the default event subscriptions. It does not discuss idempotency or overwriting behavior, but the core behavioral traits are covered effectively.

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 concise and well-structured: an introductory sentence stating purpose, a second sentence explaining behavior, and a neatly formatted Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy for an agent to quickly identify the tool's function.

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 description is quite complete given the tool's complexity. It explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and all parameters. The presence of an output schema handles return-value documentation. Minor gaps include behavior on repeated invocations (e.g., whether it replaces an existing webhook), but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate for all 4 parameters. It does so by explaining each parameter's purpose and source (e.g., 'phone_number_id' from list_phone_numbers, 'endpoint' as HTTPS URL, 'secret' as optional signing secret, and 'events' with a default). This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'Configure a webhook for a phone number to receive SMS event notifications.' It uses a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('webhook for a phone number'), and clarifies the domain by mentioning SMS events, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_phone_number_allow_list or update_phone_number.

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 provides clear context by explaining what happens when the webhook is set (Commune POSTs to the endpoint on sms.received and sms.sent events) and references list_phone_numbers as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5 but is still well above the baseline.

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