Create webhook

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (which only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It discloses critical behavioral details: the secret appears only once, endpoints are owner-scoped, deliveries retry 3 times with backoff, are at-least-once (requiring deduplication), rate limiting (10 per account), and the signing scheme. These are essential for an agent to use the tool correctly and are not visible in the schema or annotations. 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?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the core action (register URL). It covers many critical details in a compact paragraph. However, it is a bit long and covers a lot of ground; while every sentence earns its place, the sheer volume might be slightly overwhelming for an agent scanning quickly. Still, it is well-structured with progressive disclosure of important constraints.

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 tool's complexity (signing, retries, security, rate limits) and the lack of an output schema, the description covers all essential information an agent needs: the return value includes secret only once, the signing verification method, retry and deduplication requirements, and the endpoint cap. The response format isn't specified in a schema, but the description explicitly lists the returned fields, which compensates. No gaps are apparent.

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. However, the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the 'ping' event is only triggered from the web dashboard or API (not by any MCP tool), which is critical for agents to avoid confusion. It also reinforces the URL validation rules and the retry/at-least-once semantics, which are not in the parameter descriptions. Minor deduction because the schema already covers the basic formats and validation.

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 what the tool does: register a URL to receive event POSTs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tribeunal_update_webhook and tribeunal_delete_webhook by explicitly mentioning that those handle updates/deletion. The verb 'register' plus the resource 'URL' is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it names tribeunal_update_webhook for changing events or pausing delivery, and tribeunal_delete_webhook for deletion. It also explains the constraints (https, no private IPs) and the flow (re-create after delete) clearly.

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