tokportal_create_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It adds significant behavioral context: the secret is returned only once, the successful response is never stored in the replay ledger, and idempotency keys are explicitly rejected with a specific error. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the sensitive nature of the operation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and includes essential behavioral warnings. It avoids unnecessary repetition but could be slightly more streamlined by merging some sentences. Overall, it is well-structured for quick consumption.

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 parameter structure and lack of an output schema, the description partially compensates by noting that the response contains a secret (only returned once). However, it does not mention other expected response fields (e.g., endpoint ID, creation timestamp) or clarify the meaning of the events array. The idempotency behavior is well covered, but the overall picture is incomplete for an agent needing to process the return value.

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 has one required parameter 'body' with nested properties (url, events, enabled, description). Despite 100% schema description coverage claimed, only 'body' has a trivial description ('JSON request body'); the nested properties lack individual descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning to these parameters beyond their names. The agent gains no insight into what values are valid for 'url', what 'events' represent, or how 'enabled' and 'description' behave.

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 starts with 'Create a webhook endpoint,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It adds that the tool returns a signing secret once, which further clarifies the specific outcome. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update or list webhook endpoints, though the name itself helps distinguish.

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 instructions: 'Store the secret to verify TokPortal webhook signatures' and 'Do not send Idempotency-Key,' including the specific error code. This gives clear context on when to use the tool and a critical constraint. However, it lacks comparison to alternative webhook tools (e.g., update vs. create) and does not mention prerequisites such as required permissions or URL validity.

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