Create Webhook

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond the annotation: the response includes a per-webhook signing secret that should be stored for signature verification. This adds practical context that the schema and the vague openWorldHint annotation do not cover. It does not contradict any annotations, and the annotation (openWorldHint) is weak, so the description carries more weight here.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a critical operational detail. No filler or redundant content. It is well-front-loaded and earns its place.

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 low complexity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential return-value information (signing secret) and the purpose. It does not explain post-creation behavior (e.g., whether the webhook is active immediately) or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the simple scope and presence of sibling tools for other operations. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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%, with both parameters (url and events) having detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline is 3 because the schema already provides the necessary semantics. No additional value is provided beyond the schema, but none is needed.

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 specific action ('Register a webhook endpoint') and its purpose ('for event delivery'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhooks, get_webhook, and update_webhook, which perform different operations on webhook resources.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'register' and the resource type, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites, and doesn't reference the sibling tools. For a straightforward create operation in a well-understood context, implied usage is acceptable but not exemplary.

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