Create webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the HTTPS-only rejection of HTTP, the exact enum of allowed events, the payload limitation of CUSTOMER_CHANGED (only {customer_id}, no before/after diff), the deprecation of certain statuses, and the one-time-only exposure of the signing secret. These are exactly the kind of operational facts an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every following sentence carries non-redundant information (constraints, event semantics, secret handling). It is dense and somewhat long, but the length is justified by the number of distinct behavioral facts rather than 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?

For a one-parameter creation tool with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the required constraints, event contract, follow-up call, and secret-handling warning, leaving no material gap an agent would need before invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's generic 'url (HTTPS only), events' note by enumerating the actual event values and their trigger semantics, and by routing the agent to get_operation_schema('CreateWebhook') for the nested shape, adding real meaning over 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a new webhook') and immediately scopes it with concrete constraints (HTTPS-only URL, enumerated allowed event types). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like update_webhook, delete_webhook, or validate_webhook without opening any 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?

It gives strong conditional guidance: it tells the agent which events to key integrations on (ORDER_PLACED, COMPLETED) instead of the receipt-technical statuses, and that CUSTOMER_CHANGED requires a follow-up get_customer call. It stops short of explicitly contrasting create vs update_webhook, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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