Validate webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact HTTP request sent (POST with event WEBHOOK_VALIDATE), the expected server response (HTTP 2xx with body {"message": "validated_store_{store_id}"}), and the activation condition. This is significant behavioral detail, though it does not cover failure behavior or authentication requirements.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then explains the validation behavior. Every clause adds valuable information, with no wasted words or repetition. It is well-structured for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's operation.

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 tool's modest complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a thorough explanation of the validation process, the expected server response, and the activation condition. It also directs the user to get_store for store_id. The main gap is the lack of explicit return-value documentation (since no output schema exists), and failure behavior is not described, but the core workflow is well covered.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'activate' parameter's effect: 'With activate=true, the webhook becomes ACTIVE if the server replies HTTP 2xx...' It also references get_store for the store_id, providing context for the response body. The 'id' parameter is sufficiently described in the schema as a Webhook ID (UUID).

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Trigger webhook validation.' It describes the mechanism (POST with event WEBHOOK_VALIDATE) and specifies the condition for activation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook or update_webhook. The verb+resource construction is explicit and unambiguous.

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: to validate a webhook, especially for activation when activate=true. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X,' but the context of the webhook lifecycle (create, update, delete, list) makes the specific validation step clear. The activation condition provides practical usage guidance.

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