keel_create_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 does disclose a key behavioral constraint: the API rejects http://, localhost, and private network addresses. But it does not mention idempotency, behavior for duplicate subscriptions, or response/error semantics, leaving several behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of useful information (event option and URL requirement). It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description adequately covers the key requirements for calling the tool: target URL and event selection. However, it omits what happens when the optional 'event' parameter is not supplied (no default behavior stated), and with no output schema, it doesn't mention what the API returns on success or failure. These gaps make it adequate but not complete.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the exact rejection behavior for non-public URLs, which goes beyond the schema's 'public HTTPS URL' phrasing, and it reinforces the 'all' event option.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Subscribe', and names the resource, 'a target URL to Keel events', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like keel_delete_webhook and keel_list_webhooks by focusing on creation/subscription.

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 gives practical usage context: how to receive all events via event 'all' and the mandatory public HTTPS requirement. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like keel_list_webhooks or keel_delete_webhook, so the choice is implied rather than stated.

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