Create webhook

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

It adds a valuable behavioral caveat beyond the annotations: the generated secret is returned only once and is sent as a bearer token with each delivery. This tells the agent an important consequence of the operation. With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description clarifies the mutation's security-relevant side effect without contradiction.

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 main action is stated first, and the critical one-time-secret warning is placed immediately after, giving the agent the most important operational detail up front.

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 simple create operation with complete parameter documentation and an annotated mutation profile, the description covers the essential runtime behavior and the key response detail (one-time secret). It does not describe error conditions or idempotency, but those are not necessary for basic correct invocation.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond tying the webhook to a mailbox, which matches the baseline for complete schema 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?

The description names a direct action and target: 'Create a webhook for the given mailbox.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mail webhook tools such as get, update, delete, list, regenerate, and test, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 makes the basic use case clear—creating a webhook for a mailbox—but does not state when to prefer this over the related webhook management tools, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the verb 'create' but no explicit routing to alternatives is provided.

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