Configure webhook

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description earns its place by saying exactly what is destroyed — any previous webhook — and by prescribing user confirmation before the overwrite. It also discloses the delivery mechanism and the public-HTTPS requirement, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, what it overwrites plus the prerequisite, then the follow-up call. The destructive consequence is front-loaded right after the effect statement, and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but the agent does not need one: the description covers the write behavior, the overwrite risk, the confirmation step, and the verification path via test_webhook. Nothing required to call this correctly is missing.

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 adds value by enumerating the kinds of events the `events` parameter accepts, which the schema only calls 'comma-separated event names'. It still does not mention `exclude_own_messages` or the instance_id fallback, so it is an enrichment rather than full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (sets/replaces) and resource (instance webhook) and explains the concrete effect: ZapZap POSTs events to the given public HTTPS URL. It also names the event families (incoming messages, status, connection changes), so an agent can distinguish it immediately from get_webhook and test_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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: call get_webhook first, confirm with the user, then follow with test_webhook. That covers when to use it, the required prerequisite, and the correct next step — no inference left.

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