Tạo cấu hình webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the intended trigger ('when money comes in') and recommends an auth type, but it does not disclose what happens after creation, whether webhooks are immediately active, what permissions are required, whether duplicates are prevented, or what response the caller receives. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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: it states the primary purpose first, then the auth recommendation. The English 'Create a webhook config' is largely redundant with the Vietnamese clause and the tool name, but the overall size is still appropriately concise and easy to scan.

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 that the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 43% schema description coverage, the description is not enough to fully guide an agent. It omits the required parameters, return behavior, payload format, and any caveats about webhook delivery. The basic purpose is clear, but contextual completeness is lacking for a configuration-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?

The description adds some parameter-level meaning by identifying 'webhook_url' as the URL that receives the webhook and by recommending 'auth_type HMAC_SHA256 + secret_key'. However, schema description coverage is only 43%, and the required parameters 'name' and 'webhook_url' plus 'payload_format' are not explained in either the schema or the description. The description partially compensates for low coverage but not completely.

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 a specific verb ('Đăng ký') and resource ('URL nhận webhook') with a clear trigger ('khi có tiền vào'), and 'Create a webhook config' reinforces creation. It also distinguishes from siblings like monapay_list_webhooks, monapay_update_webhook, and monapay_delete_webhook through the create/register action.

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 to register a URL to receive incoming-fund webhooks. It also gives a recommended configuration ('auth_type HMAC_SHA256 + secret_key'), but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as updating, testing, or listing webhooks. The usage context is implied, not spelled out.

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