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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds meaningful specifics: the secret URL is revoked, outside systems posting to it get 404, and the rig itself is untouched. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and sets accurate expectations for an irreversible action.

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 compact sentences deliver the action, the consequence, and the prerequisite with no filler. The most important operational effect (REVOKES the secret URL) is front-loaded.

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 authorization, ID source, and post-delete external behavior. It does not address the hook_pause alternative or behavior for nonexistent IDs, but these are secondary to correct invocation.

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?

The schema already fully describes hook_id as a UUID at 100% coverage. The description adds practical value by saying the id comes from hook_list, telling the agent how to obtain a valid value for the parameter.

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 opens with 'Delete one of your webhook triggers by its hook id (from hook_list),' which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates itself from siblings like hook_pause by explaining that the secret URL is revoked, not merely disabled.

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 provides useful context: the hook id comes from hook_list and a logged-in identity is required. However, it does not explicitly mention hook_pause as the reversible alternative, nor does it state when deletion is preferable to pausing, so the when-not-to-use guidance is left implied.

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