Single tool 'send_webhook' has a clear action verb and acceptable description (89 chars), but critical gaps undermine quality. Input schema is present with two parameters (url, payload), both typed as string/object with descriptions. However, the schema lacks critical constraints: no URL format validation, no payload structure documentation, no response schema defined. The tool performs a destructive write operation (POST to external webhook) but lacks error handling guidance, retry semantics, or idempotency markers. No tool annotations (destructiveHint) despite being a write operation. Output structure is undocumented, callers cannot know what success looks like or how to handle failures. Baseline: 194 chars avg description (this tool: 89 chars, acceptable); 100% of A+ tools document return types (this tool: none). The tool is functional but falls short of production-grade quality.

• Add explicit output schema documenting response fields (e.g., status_code, response_body, timestamp, success: boolean). Include example success and error responses.
• Add destructiveHint: true annotation to send_webhook to signal that this operation has external side effects and cannot be undone.
• Expand tool description to include error handling guidance: 'Returns HTTP status code and response body. Retryable on network errors (timeout, connection refused). Non-retryable on 4xx responses (invalid URL, webhook rejected).'
• Add format constraint to url parameter: 'format: uri' in schema, and clarify in description: 'Must be a valid HTTP or HTTPS URL (e.g., https://example.com/webhook).'
• Document payload structure in parameter description: 'JSON object sent as POST body. No required fields, structure depends on webhook endpoint expectations. Common fields: event, timestamp, data.'
• Add idempotency guidance: 'Webhook calls are not idempotent by default. If the same payload is sent twice, the webhook will process both. Consider including a unique request_id in payload for deduplication.'