vk_put_user_4bf967c71ca3

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a raw proxy, requires authentication, and creates a webhook target. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting existing webhooks), idempotency, or error behaviors, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. It covers the proxy nature, parameter handling, and authentication in a few sentences without redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple proxy with one parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, parameter usage, and authentication. The absence of return-value or error details is a slight gap, but the tool is straightforward and the description is adequate.

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 one body parameter with a vague description ('The webhook target'). The description adds meaning by stating that the body is a JSON request payload and that path/query parameters are top-level fields with camelCase and snake_case aliases, significantly enhancing schema semantics.

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 that the tool creates a user-level webhook target via a raw REST proxy for PUT /user/settings/webhooks. The specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from other tools, such as generic user update tools.

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 gives clear context: it creates a webhook target for the current user that receives events across all projects. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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