ghost_create_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this creates a new webhook, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, authentication, or success/error behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the primary action and purpose without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple create operation with four parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., testing connection), expected return values, or any side effects, and with no annotations, the agent is left to assume standard behavior.

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 already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The example event names in the description are also present in the schema's parameter descriptions, so it provides no incremental value.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('webhook'), and a scope ('in Ghost CMS') with concrete event examples ('post.published', 'member.added'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ghost_list_webhooks and ghost_delete_webhook.

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 clear context by specifying the purpose ('for event notifications') and even lists example events. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when this tool should not be used, leaving some inference to the agent.

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