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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description does add genuine context beyond them: that queued retries are also cancelled and that the action is irreversible. It still omits practical behavior such as what happens to delivery history or how a missing webhook_id is handled.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded ahead of the irreversibility warning. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter destructive delete whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies the key missing facts: retry cancellation and non-reversibility. Only minor gaps remain, such as failure modes and whether auth or ownership is required.

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 50%: workspace_id is documented as coming from list_workspaces, while webhook_id has no description anywhere. The description says nothing about either parameter, though both names are largely self-explanatory, so the gap is modest rather than harmful.

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 ('Stops sending events') on a specific resource ('this endpoint'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from create_webhook and list_webhooks. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the mutation-versus-listing distinction is obvious from the phrasing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the teardown path for a webhook, and 'including retries still pending' signals the consequence of choosing it over waiting. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to update_webhook-style alternatives.

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