Manage webhooks

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

Beyond the minimal openWorldHint annotation, the description reveals that create/update/delete are write operations requiring FASTBOUND_ALLOW_WRITES, while list_events and get are reads. This gives the agent auth expectations and operation type awareness. It does not mention permanence of deletes or error details, but the core side-effect profile is disclosed.

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 two sentences with high information density. It front-loads the full operation list, then condenses action semantics and create requirements into one clause. No redundant or vague filler.

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?

With six parameters and no output schema, the description covers all action enum values and the most important parameter combination for create. The schema fills in parameter details, and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the correct action. Return-value formatting is not specified, but it is not critical for this management tool.

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 describes url, name, events, and auditUser, and the description adds meaning by grouping actions into read/write categories and specifying that create requires name, url, and events. This helps the agent understand the action-driven parameter requirements beyond the raw 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 clearly enumerates the tool's operations: 'List available webhook event types, get a webhook, or create/update/delete a webhook subscription.' It uses specific verbs and resource, and no sibling tool covers webhook management, so it distinguishes well.

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 explicitly separates read actions from write actions and notes the environment requirement: 'action=list_events|get reads; create|update|delete are writes (require FASTBOUND_ALLOW_WRITES).' It also states what must be provided for create. No exclusions or alternatives are needed since this is the only webhook tool.

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