attach_agent_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavior: 'this REPLACES the agent's current subscriptions' and that an agent points at one webhook at a time. It also warns about not guessing event types. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, then usage details, then warnings. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. Slight improvement could be trimming redundancy, but overall effective.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides thorough guidance: workflow, behavioral replacement, event type warnings, and sibling differentiation. It fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the workflow (webhook_id from get_webhooks) and reinforcing the event_types constraint (ask user, don't guess). This extra context makes it a 4.

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 action ('attach an EXISTING webhook to an agent for the given events') and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like detach_agent_webhooks by specifying the action and including a workflow hint (find webhook with get_webhooks first).

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'send this agent's call-start/call-end/analytics to an already-created webhook', and the prerequisite to find the webhook with get_webhooks. It also warns against guessing event types and directs to ask the user, and differentiates from detach_agent_webhooks.

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