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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description still earns credit by naming concrete consequences: future deliveries stop, the HMAC secret is unrecoverable, the response is 204, and the required `webhooks:write` scope. That is real value beyond the annotation flags, though downstream effects on delivery history/audit are unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, then consequences, then auth scope. No filler and nothing buried.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers permanence, side effects, the 204 return, credential loss, and the auth scope. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 baseline is 3. The description says nothing further about webhookIdentifier — not whether it is an ID versus a name, nor how to discover it (pm_list_webhooks).

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?

"Delete a webhook subscription permanently" states a specific verb and resource, and the permanence qualifier separates it from pm_update_webhook or pm_get_webhook in the sibling list. An agent knows exactly which operation this is.

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 note that you must "recreate the webhook to get a new one" implies the alternative (pm_create_webhook) after deletion, but the description never explicitly says when to delete versus update or inspect first. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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