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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the immediate effect and the important nuance that already-enqueued jobs fail permanently on next dispatch rather than retrying forever. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a single high-value behavioral consequence. No wasted words or repetition of schema content.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to identify the target, and what happens to pending jobs. It could mention idempotency or what happens on unregistering an unknown id, but the core calling context is complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance for the id parameter ('from register_webhook_target or list_webhook_targets'), which helps the agent construct a valid argument. This modest addition justifies a 4.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Unregister') and resource ('outbound webhook target') and specifies the id source, clearly distinguishing it from register_webhook_target and list_webhook_targets. The behavior is unambiguous even without opening 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?

It clearly says the id comes from register_webhook_target or list_webhook_targets, which tells the agent where to obtain the input. It also states the core effect ('Stops future pushes'), though it does not explicitly discuss alternative actions or when not to use the tool.

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