Tạo cấu hình webhook

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the side effect of registering a webhook and recommends HMAC_SHA256 plus secret_key, but it does not explain whether secret_key is required or auto-generated for HMAC, whether the URL is validated, when the webhook becomes active, or what the response contains.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose and a useful security recommendation. The English trailing phrase 'Create a webhook config' largely repeats the title, so there is minor redundancy, but overall it is compact.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 43% schema coverage, this description is incomplete. It omits required-field semantics, conditional behavior for auth types, notification scope details, and the expected result or error cases, leaving the agent to guess important configuration choices.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate. It adds a recommendation involving auth_type and secret_key, but it does not explain the required 'name' field, clarify webhook_url expectations beyond 'URL', or describe payload_format and virtual_account_id behavior.

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 ('Đăng ký URL nhận webhook' / 'Create a webhook config') and the triggering condition ('khi có tiền vào' / when money comes in). It distinguishes this from update/delete/list webhook siblings by the explicit create/register framing, though it does not name 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?

The description implies when to use it: when you need a webhook to receive incoming-payment notifications. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over monapay_update_webhook, monapay_test_webhook, or monapay_generate_webhook_snippet, and it omits prerequisites or conditions.

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