tokportal_create_webhook_endpoint

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: the signing secret is returned once and never stored in the replay ledger, and requests with Idempotency-Key header are rejected with a specific error code. This adds value beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, etc.) and prepares the agent for side effects.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail, but the first sentence is slightly redundant ('Create a webhook endpoint. Creates a webhook endpoint...'). Minor redundancy aside, it is well-structured.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by explaining the response contains a secret and that it's never stored. It also provides a post-creation step (store the secret). The behavioral aspects (idempotency key rejection) are covered. Missing details like response structure beyond the secret are not critical, but the description is sufficient for a creation tool with moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100% (the single 'body' parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (e.g., clarifying the 'url' or 'events' fields), relying entirely on the schema. While adequate, it does not go beyond the structured data.

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 'Create' and the resource 'webhook endpoint', and further specifies that it returns a signing secret. This distinguishes it from other webhook-related tools (list, get, update, delete) and provides a precise scope.

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 includes important usage constraints like 'Do not send Idempotency-Key' and 'Store the secret to verify TokPortal webhook signatures', but it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. update or list endpoints). The context of creation is implicit, but with many sibling webhook tools, explicit guidance would improve score.

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