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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotent, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds what is actually destroyed (delivery history), irreversibility, required role (owner/admin), key scope requirements, and the specific 403 failure mode for unclaimed sandbox workspaces. That is substantial context beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its irreversibility, then the alternative, then preconditions. Slightly dense in the auth sentence but 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers destruction scope, irreversibility, the softer alternative, permissions, auth requirements, and the preconditions that produce a 403 — nothing an agent needs 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema itself explains that webhook_id is a UUID taken from a list_webhooks result. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline applies.

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 plus an important scope detail: it deletes the endpoint *and its delivery history*. That distinguishes it from the sibling update_webhook, which the description explicitly contrasts.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly and the condition that selects it: 'update_webhook with status inactive pauses it instead.' An agent weighing a pause against a hard delete has everything it needs without opening another schema.

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