send_webhook_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses critical behaviors: rate limiting (5 calls/60 seconds), rejection when is_active=False, and the enqueueing behavior of a synthetic delivery. It could add details about async delivery timing or auth requirements, but covers the main operational constraints.

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 primary action, and each sentence provides necessary context: what it does, rate limit, and troubleshooting/follow-up. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists). The description covers purpose, usage constraints, failure mode, and follow-up steps, making it self-contained. With output schema present, omitting return details is fine.

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 schema only has a bare subscription_id property with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter refers to a webhook subscription, that its active state affects success, and that the test delivery targets that subscription. This adds functional meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Enqueue a synthetic webhook.test delivery') and the specific resource/action (testing webhook endpoint and HMAC verification). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like replay_webhook_delivery by focusing on verifying connectivity and HMAC, not replaying past deliveries.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: to verify endpoint reachability and HMAC. It names a follow-up tool (list_webhook_deliveries) and prescribes an alternative action (update_webhook) when the subscription is inactive, making usage context unambiguous.

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