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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds value annotations cannot: it specifies what is destroyed (everything queued, no further posts) and the authorization requirement ('Workspace owners and admins only'). It does not cover reversibility or error/partial-failure behavior.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: destruction behavior first, then usage, then permissions. The middle sentence is an elliptical fragment, which slightly hurts readability but wastes no words.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: scope of deletion, irreversible effect on queued items, alternative ordering with register_webhook, and the permission gate. Only minor gaps (reversibility, failure modes) remain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so webhook_id and workspace_id are already fully documented, including the multi-workspace requirement. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 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+resource ('Removes a webhook') and adds scope ('everything queued for it; nothing is posted to it again'), making it distinguishable from register_webhook/list_webhooks in the sibling set. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Gives concrete situations ('To stop a disabled webhook for good, or to replace an endpoint') and routes the agent to the correct sibling order ('register the new one first'). No explicit when-not-to-use, and the second sentence is a fragment rather than framed as guidance, but context is clear.

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