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

The annotations already convey destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral context by specifying that the action stops delivery, but it does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., reversibility, whether it is permanent, or what happens to pending deliveries). This adds some value beyond annotations but falls short of richer transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Stop delivery to an endpoint.' Every word is meaningful and directly conveys the core action. There is no filler, no redundant restatement, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does not mention what the caller should expect after invocation (e.g., a success/failure indicator, whether the endpoint is immediately disabled). More critically, it omits any explanation of the input parameter, which is essential for correct use. The annotations cover destructive behavior, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, 'id', and the description provides no semantic meaning for it. The agent cannot infer that 'id' refers to the webhook/endpoint identifier, its format, or any relationship to the endpoint being stopped. This is a significant gap for a tool with a single required parameter.

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 'Stop delivery to an endpoint' clearly states the effect (stopping delivery) and identifies the resource via 'endpoint', which aligns with the tool name revoke_webhook. It distinguishes this from siblings like create_webhook and get_webhook_deliveries by emphasizing cessation of delivery. However, it could be more explicit that this targets a webhook by id, and the phrase 'endpoint' is slightly generic given the tool's name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a webhook must exist with the given id), any exclusions (e.g., use pause_monitor instead for temporary pauses), or conditions under which this is the appropriate choice. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and one-sentence description.

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