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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating schema fields: it doesn't clarify whether 'events' replaces or appends to the existing subscription list, what 'destructive' entails, or whether changes are reversible — the key unknowns for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the verb and affected fields come first. Efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the annotation covers safety but the description leaves partial-update semantics, event-list replacement behavior, and the superadmin-only customerId purpose unaddressed. The schema covers parameters, so it is minimally complete rather than fully so.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description merely mirrors three of them. It adds no new syntactic or semantic detail (e.g., that events is a full replacement set) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (webhook) and enumerates the mutable fields (URL, events, active status). The name alone routes it apart from create_webhook/delete_webhook/get_webhook, though the description never explicitly contrasts those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. It does not say whether this is a partial update (only supplied fields change) or a full replacement, nor when to prefer create_webhook vs this tool. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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