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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: 'deletes the owned subscription after authorization' discloses an authorization prerequisite and ownership scoping, and it clarifies that test dispatch is unavailable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and the destructive nature. Every sentence carries distinct information — usage, safety/auth, and an exclusion — with 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, destructiveness, authorization requirement, the source of the required ID, and a scope exclusion. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% with a single required subscription_id, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by telling the agent the value must come from list-webhook-subscriptions, which is actionable sourcing guidance the schema does not provide.

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 ('remove'/deletes) plus the exact resource ('webhook subscription') and the operational effect ('stop sending events to an endpoint'). This clearly separates it from the siblings create-webhook-subscription, update-webhook-subscription, and list-webhook-subscriptions without needing the schema.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to remove a webhook subscription or stop sending events to an endpoint' gives explicit triggering conditions, and 'webhook test dispatch is not exposed' rules out a nearby use case. It stops short of naming update-webhook-subscription as the alternative for merely pausing/disabling, so it is not a full when-vs-alternative statement.

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