create_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool registers a webhook endpoint and that events will be sent as POSTs with HMAC-SHA256 signature. It does not address auth requirements beyond the optional apiKey parameter, nor does it mention idempotency, rate limits, or error handling. The description provides moderate transparency but lacks depth.

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 very short (two sentences) with no wasted words aside from the unclear 'Send16' phrase, which reduces effectiveness. It is front-loaded enough, but the typo makes it less concise in meaning. A score of 3 reflects adequate conciseness with a minor flaw.

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?

With 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotation context, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the response, error cases, creation idempotency, or the behavior of the 'enabled' parameter. The mention of HMAC-SHA256 and plan feature are useful, but overall the description leaves significant gaps for a creation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds context about the webhook sending POSTs with HMAC-SHA256 signature, but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already documents parameters, the description adds minimal extra semantics, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 states 'Register an outgoing webhook endpoint' which identifies the main action and resource, but the phrase 'Send16 POSTs event JSON' is unclear due to a possible typo ('Send16' instead of 'Send' or 'Send16' as a product). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_webhook and list_webhooks, but the clarity is diminished by the ambiguous wording.

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 briefly mentions 'Outgoing webhooks are a plan feature', indicating that usage may depend on the account plan, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like regenerate_webhook_secret or delete_webhook. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.

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