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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the exact return payload, how already-inactive subscriptions behave (still {deleted:true}), which error condition produces not_found (unknown or foreign IDs), the required permission, and the no-retry contract. That is the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 sentences, action stated first, each sentence carrying distinct information (return value, idempotency, error case, auth, retry policy). No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly documents the return value and error case, and it covers auth and retry semantics for a destructive operation. The only gap is where the webhookId comes from and its format, which the schema silently expresses as a UUID.

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 coverage is 0% and the single webhookId parameter is not described in terms of format or origin. The phrase 'unknown or foreign IDs return not_found' does imply project-scoped ID semantics, which is a small addition, but an agent still has to infer that a UUID from list_webhooks is expected.

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 the word 'deactivate' usefully clarifies that this is a soft-delete rather than a hard removal. It is distinguishable from create_webhook, list_webhooks and rotate_webhook_secret by resource and action, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 (remove/deactivate a webhook) and it supplies the webhooks.write prerequisite, which is genuinely useful before calling. It does not say when to prefer this over devtune_rotate_webhook_secret or how to discover IDs via devtune_list_webhooks, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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