Send a test event to the webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call performs an outbound test delivery and reports back HTTP status and latency, which is meaningful context beyond the flags. It does not describe timeout/failure behavior or whether the test event is marked as such on the receiver.

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 waste, with the behavior and return value front-loaded and the usage hint trailing. Nothing to cut.

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 only two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to call it and even summarizes the return payload. Only the failure/timeout semantics are left implicit.

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% and both parameter descriptions already explain the `url` override and the `instance_id` fallback to ZAPZAP_INSTANCE_ID. The description's 'or to `url` if given' merely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('sends a test event to the configured webhook') plus the return payload (HTTP status and latency), which separates it cleanly from set_webhook, get_webhook, and get_webhook_deliveries.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger ('right after set_webhook to validate the receiving server') and the alternative target ('or to `url` if given'), so the agent knows the ordering relative to the sibling. No explicit when-not guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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