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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: paused hooks retain their URL, all posts are refused until resumed, and authentication is required. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies the reversible, non-destructive nature of the operation.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, then provides the essential behavioral consequence and auth requirement in the second sentence.

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 simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete: it states ownership, reversible behavior, the effect on incoming posts, and the auth prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully: hook_id is the UUID of the webhook trigger and paused is a boolean with 'true to pause, false to resume'. With 100% schema coverage, the description wisely does not repeat parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Pause or resume one of your webhook triggers') and explains the defining behavior: a paused hook keeps its URL but refuses posts. This also distinguishes it from hook_delete, since the URL is preserved rather than removed.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: on 'your webhook triggers', with the behavioral consequence of pausing and a logged-in identity requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives like hook_delete or state 'use this instead of deleting', so it stops short of a 5.

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