tokportal_create_webhook_endpoint

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

Discloses critical behavioral traits not evident from annotations: the response contains a secret that is never stored in the replay ledger, and sending Idempotency-Key results in a 400 error before any ledger claim or execution. This adds significant value beyond the annotations, which only indicate mutability and non-idempotence.

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 extremely concise—three sentences—and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence conveys essential information without clutter. It wastes no words and is highly scannable.

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 nested body and extensive event enum in the schema, the description covers the most critical operational aspects (secret handling, idempotency-key rejection). It does not explain the return format or the meaning of 'enabled'/'description', but the schema covers those. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a create operation with a sensitive response.

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 coverage is 100% (body has a description), but the tool description does not add detail about individual parameters. It does mention the sensitive response, but that is about the tool's behavior, not parameter meanings. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema holds the parameter structure; the description doesn't compensate further.

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: 'Create a webhook endpoint.' It is distinct from sibling tools (list, update, delete, test) by the verb 'create'. The purpose is unambiguous and specific to the resource.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: warns against sending Idempotency-Key, explains the need to store the signing secret, and describes the rejection behavior with a specific error code. This is above-and-beyond typical guidance and directly addresses potential misuse.

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