webhooks_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does well: discloses that the signing secret is returned only once and will be masked in subsequent responses, warns to store it securely immediately, and requires HTTPS for the URL. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides. Could add error behaviors, idempotency, or rate limits, but the critical behavioral warning is present.

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?

Three sentences, all carrying meaningful content. The signing-secret warning is appropriately front-loaded. It's compact but information-dense. Loses a point only because it could be slightly tighter by trimming the redundant wildcard note already present in the schema, though it's arguably worth restating for emphasis.

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 creation tool with 5 params (2 required), full schema coverage, and no output schema, this description covers the essential behavioral caveats: the one-time-only signing secret disclosure, HTTPS requirement, and wildcard subscription option. It's quite complete for a create action. Could mention that subsequent responses mask the secret or what the response contains, but the critical operational guidance is there.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the critical security behavior around the signing secret returned in the response (not a param but related context) and reiterating the ['*'] wildcard semantic from the events param. It also highlights the HTTPS requirement tying to the url param. This adds useful emphasis beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover isActive or companyId specifics in the description text itself.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Register a new webhook endpoint') and scopes it to 'the current company', distinguishing this from siblings like webhooks_list, webhooks_update, webhooks_delete, webhooks_get, and webhooks_test. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 operational guidance: URL must use HTTPS, and how to subscribe to all event types via ['*']. It also explains the special signing-secret behavior. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but the create-vs-other verb distinction plus operational constraints give good context. No explicit exclusions or alternative references though.

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