vk_put_projects_8e01c442b6a8

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Authentication is required' and 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy,' but it also says 'optional body field' while the input schema marks 'body' as required—a direct contradiction that misleads the agent. It also fails to describe response behavior or error conditions. The inconsistency undermines trust.

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 brief (four sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the third sentence ('Create a webhook target which receives...') is somewhat redundant with the first sentence ('Create a webhook target'), so it is not perfectly concise. Still, it avoids bloat and stays focused.

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?

This is a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, so completeness requirements are moderate. The description covers purpose, parameter passing, and authentication, but it omits critical details about the 'body' object's expected fields (e.g., event types, target URL) and does not clarify the contradiction between 'optional body field' and the schema's required marker. The provided context is enough for basic invocation but leaves gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful notes about parameter passing ('Path and query parameters are top-level fields' and alias support) but does not elaborate on the structure of the 'body' object beyond the schema's minimal description. The misleading 'optional body field' actually detracts from parameter clarity.

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: 'Create a webhook target.' It also specifies the exact REST endpoint (PUT /projects/{id}/webhooks), which distinguishes it from other vk_put_projects_* siblings that likely target different project operations. The verb 'create' and resource 'webhook target' are specific and unambiguous.

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: 'Create a webhook target which receives POST requests about specified events from a project.' It also instructs how to pass parameters ('Pass the JSON request payload in the optional body field') and mentions parameter alias flexibility. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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