set_phone_number_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the webhook will POST events and that secret verification is optional. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing webhooks), error behavior, validation of endpoints, or prerequisites beyond having a phone number. More detail would improve transparency.

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, with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet-point-style parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids extraneous details. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 covers the basic workflow and default events, but lacks details on update behavior (e.g., whether it replaces or merges), error handling, validation rules (e.g., endpoint must be reachable), and how to disable the webhook. Given the complexity of a configuration tool, these omissions leave gaps in understanding.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains phone_number_id as 'from list_phone_numbers', endpoint as 'HTTPS URL', secret as 'Optional webhook signing secret', and events with default values and event types. This helps the agent understand the role and constraints of each parameter, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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: configuring a webhook for a phone number to receive SMS event notifications. It specifies that Commune will POST to the endpoint on sms.received and sms.sent events, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that handle SMS sending, phone number management, etc.

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 usage context: to receive SMS event notifications via webhook. It explains the default events and provides links to related tools (list_phone_numbers). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives, but given the unique purpose among siblings, this is a minor gap.

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