webhooks_create

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing that the response contains the full signing secret that will thereafter be masked — a critical one-time-visibility behavior. The HTTPS requirement is another behavioral constraint an agent must honor.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it does, the secret-handling warning, the HTTPS constraint, and the wildcard hint. Front-loaded with the action and no filler.

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 non-idempotent create with no output schema but full schema coverage, the description supplies the one piece of context the schema can't — the one-time signing secret. Defaults and field details are left to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 the schema already documents url, events (including the ["*"] wildcard), isActive, companyId, and description. The description largely repeats this (HTTPS url, ["*"] events) rather than adding new semantic detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Register a new webhook endpoint') scoped to the current company. This clearly separates it from webhooks_list/get/update/delete siblings, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Provides concrete constraints for correct use (URL must be HTTPS, use ["*"] to subscribe to all events), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to sibling tools such as webhooks_update or webhooks_test.

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