Create webhook

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and fully exceeds it: one-time signing secret, exact hmac_sha256 verification formula with timestamp and hex format, 3 retries with backoff, at-least-once delivery requiring dedup on X-Tribeunal-Delivery, URL restrictions (no private/loopback/link-local/CGNAT), and the 10-endpoint cap. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One dense paragraph of roughly 100 words, front-loaded with the core purpose and then flowing logically through scope, security, delivery semantics, URL restrictions, and limits. Every sentence earns its place; the security and delivery details are dense but necessary for correct invocation and safe handling of delivered events.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what to provide (url, events), the constraints on those values, and the critical response detail (signing secret shown only once, with the verification formula). An agent has everything needed to create the webhook correctly and process its deliveries, so the absent output schema does not create a gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it tightens the url semantics (must be absolute https, must not resolve to private/loopback/link-local/CGNAT addresses) and contextualizes events as owner-scoped. These extra constraints and scoping information justify an above-baseline score.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Register a URL that Tribeunal will POST your cases' events to...' which clearly states what the tool does and its benefit (react without polling). It is unambiguously distinguishable from siblings like tribeunal_list_webhooks and tribeunal_delete_webhook because the verb and effect (registering a delivery endpoint) are specific and unique among them.

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 'react without polling' framing gives clear context for when to prefer webhooks over polling-based siblings like await_case_activity or get_case_activity, and the owner-scoped note clarifies the delivery model. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (list_webhooks, delete_webhook) or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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