Create a webhook endpoint

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: webhook response secrets are redacted, new signing secrets are written only to a private local file, and confirm=true is mandatory. It stops short of explaining what 'irreversible state' actually means.

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, front-loaded with the action and its risk, with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 destructive, 9-parameter, nested-payload tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation gate and secret handling well. It omits return-shape expectations and the payload vs. body-flag exclusivity, though the latter is documented in the schema.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters (events, account, confirm, secret_name, payload_file). The description adds only a restated confirm requirement and secret-persistence context, contributing little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a partially covered, 9-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('Create a webhook endpoint'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like create_webhook or update_webhook_endpoint, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 notes 'Requires confirm=true', which is a real usage precondition, and the schema adds 'Use only for an action requested by the user.' But it never states when to reach for this tool versus create_webhook or update_webhook_endpoint, so routing guidance is only implied.

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