Повторно отправить вебхук

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool triggers a re-delivery (a mutation) and implies idempotency-ish behavior, but doesn't detail side effects like duplicate deliveries, rate limits, or confirmation response. It adds some value beyond the name but could be more transparent about what happens after calling.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loads the action and adds a concrete use case. Each sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is almost complete. However, without an output schema or annotations, the agent doesn't know what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure status) or whether it can be called repeatedly. A touch more detail on expected outcome would elevate it.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter, so the description doesn't need to add much. It doesn't elaborate on what 'id' exactly refers to (transaction ID is clear), but the schema already defines it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 (asks WATA to re-deliver) and the object (payment webhook to terminal address), distinguishing it from tools like wata_webhook_verify or wata_transaction_get. It is specific enough that an agent can understand the purpose without opening the schema.

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 a clear use case: when the server didn't receive a notification. It implies this is a retry mechanism and should be used after a failed delivery, but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., if the transaction is already refunded). Good context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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