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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new context: the exact return payload ({deleted:true}), not_found for unknown/foreign IDs, the required webhooks.write permission, and the no-automatic-retries policy. That is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the structured hints, though it stops short of explaining whether the operation is reversible or recoverable.

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?

Four short, dense sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries distinct, actionable information (return shape, edge case, error case, permission, retry policy).

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the return value, idempotent behavior, error semantics, permission requirement, and retry policy. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 0% and the description never explains webhookId format, source, or syntax. The only parameter insight is indirect — 'foreign IDs return not_found' hints that IDs are project-scoped — which is thin compensation for a completely undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deactivate a project webhook'), and within the webhook sibling group (create_webhook, list_webhooks, rotate_webhook_secret) the action is unmistakable. It also usefully signals that this is a soft deactivation rather than a hard purge, which the tool name 'delete' alone would not convey.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the required webhooks.write scope, and the edge-case note (already-inactive still returns deleted:true) helps an agent decide it is safe to call. However, no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not condition is stated, so the agent must infer from the name and siblings.

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