Create a webhook endpoint

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: the signing secret is intentionally not returned and must be retrieved from the dashboard. It also explains that events are delivered as signed POST requests, which is useful context for an agent preparing to handle webhooks. Annotations provide only basic booleans, so the description carries the behavioral burden well.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key security behavior. Every word earns its place; information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 schema fully documents all four parameters and annotations are present, the description covers the essential creation behavior and the important secret-handling detail. It does not describe return values (no output schema), but that is not required. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly say what happens after successful creation (e.g., immediate event delivery), but the overall intent is clear.

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. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already documents. It adds general context about public https URLs and signed POST requests, but no parameter-specific details, so it neither compensates nor detracts from the schema.

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 ('Register') and resource ('public https URL to receive events'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_webhook and delete_webhook. It also adds a distinctive detail about signed POST requests, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool (when creating a webhook endpoint) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like update_webhook and delete_webhook are present, but no routing guidance is given; the usage is clear from the name and description but left to inference.

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